Stray Dogs Matter: Constitutional Validity of Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 Challenged, Bombay High Court Issues Notice to Union Government And Others

Reported by Mubarak Ansari

Pune, 8th May 2024: The Bombay High Court has issued notice to the Union of India and other concerned parties in response to a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023. The petition, filed by Seawoods Estates Ltd and others, raises crucial questions regarding the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Advocate Satya Muley, representing the petitioners along with Advocate Vaibhav Kulkarni, emphasized the importance of human safety and rights while addressing the issue of stray animal management. The petitioners argue that while they harbour no animosity towards stray animals, the paramount concern must be the protection of human life and well-being, as mandated by the Indian Constitution.

The bench of the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice J.S. Jain, has deemed it necessary to seek responses from the Union of India and other stakeholders. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 1, 2024.

Petitioners’ Grounds:
The petitioners include Seawoods Estate Private Limited (SEL), a company managing a residential area accommodating around 1500 units, and residents of Brahma Cooperative Housing Society in Pune, Maharashtra. Both entities have been adversely affected by the implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023.

SEL, in response to complaints from its shareholders, took measures to prevent stray dog feeders from accessing its premises. However, their actions were challenged in court, prompting the present petition questioning the validity of the ABC Rules 2023. Similarly, residents of Brahma Cooperative Housing Society have faced legal challenges regarding the release of stray dogs within their premises.

Violation of Rights and Legal Complexities:
The petitioners argue that the ABC Rules 2023 infringe upon various fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including Articles 14, 19, and 21. They contend that these rules are not aligned with existing legislation, such as the Companies Act 2013 and State Acts governing municipal corporations and cooperative societies.

Of particular concern are provisions within the ABC Rules 2023 that empower non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to adjudicate on matters related to stray dog attacks, a role the petitioners believe exceeds the legal mandate of such entities. Additionally, the rules mandate private entities to provide space for feeding community animals, a responsibility the petitioners argue is beyond the purview of their statutory obligations.

Legal Arguments and Precedents:
Advocate Satya Muley presented a comprehensive legal argument, highlighting conflicts between the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 and existing laws, including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and municipal regulations. Muley cited judicial precedents and statutory provisions to underscore the constitutional implications of the ABC Rules 2023.

He emphasized the need to prioritize human rights and safety, drawing parallels with previous court decisions that upheld the principle of protecting citizens from nuisances caused by animals. Additionally, Muley invoked Mahatma Gandhi’s views on animal welfare, underscoring the societal responsibility to maintain a safe and hygienic environment.

Seeking Constitutional Redress:
Advocate Satya Muley, supported by Advocate Vaibhav Kulkarni, reiterated the petitioners’ demand for the court to declare specific provisions of the ABC Rules 2023 as unconstitutional. They also sought directives to local authorities to formulate effective guidelines for addressing the issue of stray animals, balancing compassion with public safety.

The outcome of this legal challenge will have far-reaching implications for animal welfare policies and the interpretation of fundamental rights in India.