No coercive steps for feeding stray dogs : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken as pursuance of the recent order of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court (HC) which prohibited the feeding of stray dogs at public places in Nagpur. It also stayed HC’s observation that persons who feed stray dogs must adopt them. 

The NMC has been directed to ensure and take steps for the general public to feed stray dogs at designated locations. Although it has been directed by the Supreme Court that no coercive action as per the HC order which stipulates imposition of fine is to be taken by the NMC. The NMC has been directed to designate special spots to enable the general public to feed the stray dogs. Furthermore, the Court has also issued the direction to the effect that firstly, the general public is to ensure that no nuisance is caused due to public feeding of stray dogs and, secondly, NMC is to deal with the issues of any nuisance of dogs as per laws.

The Supreme Court has clarified that, the proceedings before the HC is to continue and, that, the High Court may consider applications for modification/review of the impugned order.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J K Maheshwari said that it would be open to the Municipal authorities to deal with any nuisance caused by the street dogs in accordance with the law.  “We also require the general public to ensure that no public nuisance is caused by feeding stray dogs,” the Court stated in the order.  “We also require the general public to ensure that no public nuisance is caused by feeding stray dogs,” the Court stated in the order. 

The HC in its order on October 20 stated that if these so called friends of stray dogs are really interested in protection and welfare of the stray dogs, they must adopt the stray dogs, take home them or at least put them up in some good dog shelter homes and bear all the expenses for their registration with Municipal Authorities and towards their maintenance, health and vaccination. The Apex Court stayed these observations.

The bench passed the interim order while considering a special leave petition filed by a group of dog lovers against the HC’s order. 

It will be open for the Municipal Authorities to take down the names and details of persons who created public nuisance by feeding street dogs. However, no coercive action in the for of penalties should be taken by the authorities as directed by the High Court in respect of public feeding of dogs, the Court said.  

The Court has directed the Animal Welfare Board of India and NMC to file their responses. The Division bench wondered if the direction of the Bombay HC that the people who want to feed street dogs should adopt them and take them home or put them in shelter homes are practical. 

“You can not insist that people who feed street dogs should adopt them,” Justice Khanna orally said during the hearing. The bench asked the counsel representing the NMC, “Do you think the order is practical?”. The counsel replied that she needs to get instructions.

The bench also asked the Animal Welfare Board of India about its stand and asked if the HC directions are practical. “If these stray dogs are not fed, they will become more aggressive,” the Board’s counsel replied. She submitted that the Board has issued guidelines to all states regarding the feeding of stray dogs, and if those are followed, the issue can be solved. 

A Counsel appearing for an intervenor, opposed the passing of interim order. Rejecting the objection, Justice Khanna said, “To say that the stray dogs should be adopted or kept in captivity is not acceptable.”

When the Counsel submitted that there are studies which show that dogs become aggressive on feeding, Justice Khanna replied, “there is counter-literature on that too.” 

Another Counsel, to oppose the interim order, submitted that the HC has only prohibited the feeding of dogs at public places. “Where else do street dogs live? Do they have private residences ?,” Justice Khanna asked. 

“Street dogs are not going to be kept in captivity. If that is your position, we can not do anything. Sorry. If there is a problem with respect to the population. They may be relocated as per the law,” Justice Khanna stated. 

The impugned decision requires persons interested in feeding stray dogs to first adopt and register such dogs with Municipal Authorities or to put them in some shelter home. Meanwhile, the HC also directed the concerned authorities under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to detain all stray dogs wandering in the public streets. 

The Petitioners alleged that these directions not only adversely affect the rights of street dogs, care-givers but are also contrary to both statutory provisions as well as the orders of the Supreme Court. 

It may be mentioned here that after the HC’s direction, the NMC has started picking up and detaining the street dogs on a large scale. However, the authorities have failed to take into consideration the guidelines issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India in relation to feeding stray dogs and the guidelines with respect to harassment of citizens showing compassion towards other living creatures. 

The plea highlights that there is no legislation which prohibits feeding of stray dogs or otherwise makes it a penal offence and thus contends that Article 226 can not be invoked to direct statutory authorities to act contrary to law. 

It states that blanket directions for detention of stray dogs is illegal as Rule 7 of the Animal Birth Control Rules makes it abundantly clear that capturing/detention of dogs shall be based on ‘specific complaints’ about nuisance or dog bite. 

It refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in “Animal Welfare Board of India V A. Nagaraja” which recognized animals' right to life and dignity and the right to get protection from human beings. 

It is submitted that the HC’s decision is also inconsistent with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 3 which guarantees the right to get food, shelter to animals. 

Reliance is also placed on “Dr Maya D Chablani V Radha Mitta”, where the Delhi High Court observed that stray dogs have the right to food and citizens have the right to feed community dogs. The HC had also cautioned dog-care givers to ensure that they do not cause any harm or nuisance to other individuals or members of society. 

The plea asserts that “to have compassion for living creattures” is a constitutional mandate, as reflected in Article 51-A (g) under Part IV-A of the Constitution which declared Fundamental duties of every citizen. “Every citizen must show kindness and love towards non-vocal beings, including stray dogs,” the plea stated. 

Sr Counsel Ravi K Deshpande, Adv Ashwin Deshpande and Adv Hrishikesh Chitaley appeared for intervenor Dhantoli Nagrik mandal. Adv Shakul Ghatole appeared for Vijay Talewar, who is the petitioner before the HC.