Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

While hearing a plea for designated feeding areas for stray dogs in housing societies, a division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice RN Laddha on Tuesday said that once animals are looked after in a specific area, they tend to recognize and return to that area.

The bench highlighted that sometimes even cats in the high court building sit on the judges' dais. "Have you taken a round for the High Court? Have you seen the number of cats? There are cats everywhere. Sometimes, they are even sitting on the judges' dais. You take them out from there, they will come back. Those cats are permanently around the areas chosen by them. Some cats are permanently located in the bar rooms, some inside or outside a particular judges' chamber. Those cats will be permanently located there only, you won't find them anywhere else. They mark their areas", the bench said. 

During the hearing in the petition filed by one Paromita Purthan, who alleged that her society had not provided a designated feeding area and was preventing her from feeding 18 stray dogs, the judges made the aforementioned comments.

Adjudicating upon the issues raised, court upheld the rights of stray animals and emphasized the importance of caring for all animals.

"These are all living beings, we have to care for them. The petitioner has been nurturing the dogs in a particular area, they will continue coming there. You have to take care and survive with them," Justice Kulkarni said.

Further, a division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice RN Laddha in its order passed on Monday had observed that to hate stray dogs and treat them with cruelty can never be an acceptable approach from persons of civil society.

"We also intend to sound a word of caution to the members of the managing committee and the other members of the society that to hate the stray dogs and/or treat them with cruelty can never be an acceptable approach, from persons of civil society, as an act of cruelty to such animals would be against the Constitutional ethos and the statutory provisions," the bench had stated.

The court is dealing with a plea of a resident of Kandivali west, Mumbai, who claims to be an animal lover. The petitioner contended that cruelty was being caused to the dogs, on account of the management of the society where he resides by not permitting him to feed these dogs and to care for their requirements including providing water. 

Further, the court was informed that a designated area for feeding the dogs is not being provided by the society and the petitioner was compelled to feed the dogs at the gate of the society making the animals vulnerable to road accidents in which the animals are likely to die. 

The petitioner, therefore, requested for a designated feeding place to be provided inside the premises of the society.

The counsel for the petitioner argued before the court that a resolution was passed by the society according to which bouncers were hired which not only prevented the petitioner from feeding the dogs but also personally harassed the petitioner from taking care of these stray animals, although this was disputed by the Society.

The counsel drew the court's attention to the “The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023”, framed in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 38 (1) and (2) and Clause (ea) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 according to which it is the responsibility of the ‘Resident Welfare Association’ or ‘Apartment Owner Association’ of the area to make necessary arrangement for feeding of the community animals residing in the premises or the area involving the person residing in that area or premises, who feed those animals or intend to feed those animals and provide care to street animals as a compassionate gesture.

The court in its order had recorded that if the society continues to take coercive action then it would amount to commission of an offence. "If the Society continues to take any coercive measures as noted by us above and by physical force, persons like the petitioner are prevented from taking care of these animals, and/or from pursuing such activity which is wholly permissible in law, such actions on their part would not only be contrary to the provisions of law, but also, amount to commission of an offence" the order read.

Case Title: Paromita Purthan vs BMC & Ors.