Stray Dog Issue | Supreme Court Lists Matter For Final Hearing On February 28

A Division Bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia also recorded that pleadings may be exchanged, if any, a week before the above-mentioned date. In the meantime, the parties were allowed to file their written submissions.

During today's hearing, the Court also asked the parties to prepare the concerned issues, relating laws and rules, views taken, in terms of that, by the different High Courts, and an SOP.

“Accordingly, we will hear, and that will serve the purpose. It may go on for two days or three days, whatever it is, but let it go in this way. Thereby, we can justify which is the correct view…,” the Bench said and listed the matter for hearing on the above-mentioned date. 

To provide a brief background, the Parliament enacted ABC Rules 2001 (Amended ABC Rules ) under Section 38, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the State laws dealing with “Control and other provisions as to dogs.” Five impugned judgments from Bombay, Kerala, Karnataka, and the Himachal Pradesh High Court are before the Top Court. The Kerela High Court, in 2015, upheld the ABC Rules and held that Municipal Laws for destructing stray dogs should comply with ABC rules. Unbridled discretionary powers cannot be granted to the municipal authorities for killing stray dogs.

On the other hand, the Bombay, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh High Courts held that the local authorities have discretionary powers to kill stray dogs and are not subject to the ABC Rules. The minority judgment of the Bombay High Court held that the PCA Act and ABC Rules prescribe the circumstances and situation under which stray dogs can be exterminated, and discretion conferred on local authorities has to be exercised in consonance with ABC Rules.

Challenging the Bombay High Court's judgment, the Animal Welfare Board preferred an appeal before the Top Court. It is the petitioner's stance that the municipal laws, such as the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, The Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, and other such laws, were enacted by the State Legislature in the exercise of its legislative power under Entry 5 of List II of Schedule VII to ensure the proper maintenance of the city municipality. However, these municipal laws, to maintain the city, have conferred the local commissioners of the cities with unbridled discretionary power to destroy stray dogs if they believe that a dog is a source of nuisance. 

Basis this, it has been contended that the word nuisance has not been defined under the BMC Act. The use of the word 'may' in the Section has given broad and arbitrary discretion to the Commissioners to exercise their powers to destroy dogs in the city indiscriminately, contrary to the PCA Act and ABC Rules. The State Laws do not lay down any parameters for exercising the discretionary power in killing stray dogs. 

It may also be noted that on an earlier occasion (September 21, 2023), the Court had orally remarked that it did not intend to issue any interim directions and wanted to hear the matter on merits and issue concrete guidelines. "Our intention in this case is very clear. We don't want to give any interim directions. We want to go through statue, rules, implementation, problem and solution and issue guidelines. Thereby, the litigation in other High Courts can be curtailed." 

Pursuant to this, on November 01, the Court listed the matter for a final hearing today. 

Advocate-On-Record Manisha T. Karia appeared for the Animal Welfare Board. 

Case Title: Animal Welfare Board of India V. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles C.A. No. 5988/2019