historic judgements
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGMENT AND ORDERS
[1.] In Civil Appeal No. 5387/2014 in the matter of Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the following:
“Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which includes depriving its life, out of human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. So far as animals are concerned, in our view, “life” means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human-beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity.”
“Animals’ well-being and welfare have been statutorily recognised under Sections 3 and 11 of the Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act read with Article SIA(g) of the Constitution. Right to get food, shelter is also a guaranteed right under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and the Rules framed thereunder, especially when they are domesticated.”
Therefore, the Apex court lays down that, unlike humans, animals derive their right to ‘life’ from the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and this protects them from “torture unnecessary pain and suffering.” It is not meant to grant them the same rights given to humans under Article 21. Therefore, Article 21 is not applicable to animals as it is to citizens nor did the Apex court refer to or allow stray dog feeding in public places in any way or manner.
[2.] The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quotes Brambell's Five Freedoms for Animals-
(i) Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; (ii) Freedom from fear and distress; (iii) Freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; (iv) Freedom from pain, injury and disease; and (v) Freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.
These freedoms are already provided to domestic animals under the PCA Act. However, they do not include nor grant people the right to feed stray animals in public places, nor do they imply that stray dogs should be fed on the streets and especially when human fundamental rights are violated. Most importantly, the Five Freedoms would clearly and emphatically require dogs to be either owned or sheltered to be able to experience these rights.
[3.] Hon'ble Supreme Court directions for Municipalities and citizens dated 16th Nov 2022 in SLP (Civil) 35297/2022:
- Municipal Authorities to ensure and take required steps to ensure that feeders feed stray dogs at appropriate locations demarcated/identified by authorities.
- Municipal Authorities to note down the names and details of stray dog feeders, in case public nuisance or endangerment of people is caused because of their conduct and take appropriate action as per relevant/Municipal laws.
ili Municipal Authorities to take steps to deal with the issue of public nuisance caused by ferocious and aggressive stray dogs, in accordance with law.
- General public to ensure that public nuisance is not caused by feeding of the stray dogs
The Apex Court did not give the AWBI or any NGOs/stray dog feeders the liberty to be involved in this exercise.
[4.] In 2016 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a family restrained by the Bombay High Court from feeding pigeons from their own private balcony, stating that-
“A person cannot feed birds from a flat’s balcony creating nuisance due to droppings and filth for other occupants in a residential society.”
Justices UU Lalit and indu Malhotra stated, “If you are living in a residential society, then you have to conduct yourself according to the norms.”
[5.] Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP 4731/2022 -
Humane Foundation for People and Animals Vs Animal Welfare Board of India, vacated the Stay on the Hon’ble Delhi HC June 2021 judgment on stray dog feeding stating, “We have been given to understand that the parties to said suit have settled the matter. Since the matter was relating to controversy which had arisen as a result of dispute between the private parties, the applicant had no locus in the matter.”
No feeder or NGO arguments were accepted or heard by the Apex court, the court did not uphold stray dog feeding and the vacated the stay on technical grounds instead, not merits.
[6.] Hon'ble Bombay High Court in W.P. 4075/2015:
“The right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not merely a right to survive but extends to right to live a dignified and meaningful life and as such, there is a corresponding obligation on the state government and its agencies to ensure that the said rights are not violated.”
[7.] Hon'ble Karnataka HC in WP No. 110352/2019:
- “There is a statutory obligation which has been imposed upon the local municipal authorities to safeguard the human beings cohabitating within their jurisdiction from the danger of any stray dogs and/or any attacks by such stray dogs. Dogs which do not come within the scope of Rule 9 or 10 but which are a menace or cause nuisance irrespective of whether there is evidence of such dogs having mauled or bitten children or adults could be exterminated in the manner specified in Rule 9 of the ABC Rules.”
- “There is a public duty and/or statutory duty vested with the municipal authorities to safeguard the citizens residing in the area from attack of street dogs and that the municipal authorities are responsible and as such are required to follow the above directions.”
- “Municipal authorities are held to be liable under public law for any injury and/or death caused to any citizen on account of attack by street dogs within the jurisdiction of the said municipal authority.”
[8.] Hon'ble Delhi HC judgment I.A. No. 4164/2021:
“If any dog repeatedly attacks other dogs or residents, such dog must be removed to a private shelter by the AoA/RWA or a public shelter by the Municipality.”
There is no law which prevents the permanent removal or relocation of stray dogs, particularly the ferocious/biting ones, for the safety of citizens. It is only dogs which are picked up for sterilisation are to be returned back to the place from where they were captured, if and where possible. Hence removal of stray dogs from sensitive areas is not only not well within the law, but is also mandated on the state’s responsibility to protect the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21, which is paramount to all other laws.