HUMANE FOUNDATION FOR PEOPLE AND ANIMALS VS.ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA

 

 HUMANE FOUNDATION FOR PEOPLE AND ANIMALS VS.ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA, 4 MARCH 2022.

 

CORAM:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran.

 

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:A Delhi High Court order in Dr. Maya D. Chablani vs. Smt. Radha and Ors. of June 24 2021 is not in consonance with a Supreme Court order inAnimal Welfare Board of India vs. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles and Ors.of November 18 2015, both of them being about right of stray dogs. As the petitioner arguesin the case before the apex court at present,the Supreme Court’s order has directed the high courts to refrain from passing any order pertaining to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001with regard to dogs.An NGO in this case, through a special leave petition, contends that the Delhi High Court has just not followed this direction and hasheard a petition involving feeding of street dogs, even when the Supreme Court has explicitly set aside for a later consideration the need to strike“a balance between compassion to dogs and lives of human being”, keeping implementation of the 1960 Act and the 2001 Rules in the first place.

EXCERPTS FROM:

·       Animal Welfare Board of India vs. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles and Ors. 18.11.2015:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

1.     “there has to be compassion for dogs”;“they should not be killed in an indiscriminate manner” but “one should not suffer due to dog bite because of administrative lapse.”

2.     “all the State municipal corporations, municipal committees, district boards and local bodies shall be guided by the Act and the Rules”(i.e., The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001). “Animal Welfare Board to see that they are followed with all seriousness.” (i.e., the Act and the Rules are adhered to strictly). “all the municipal corporations to provide infrastructure as mandated in the statute and the rules.”“Once that is done, we are disposed to think for the present that a balance between compassion to dogs and the lives of human being, which is appositely called a glorious gift of nature, may harmoniously co-exist.”.

3.     “all the High Courts not to pass any order relating to the 1960 Act and the 2001 Rules pertaining to dogs.”

4.     “A copy of the order passed today be sent to the Chief Secretary of each of the States and the competent authority of Union Territories, so that they can follow the same in letter and spirit.”

 

·       Dr. Maya D. Chablani vs. Smt. Radha and Ors. 24.06.1991

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.     “Animals have a right under law to be treated with compassion, respect and dignity.”; “protection of such beings is the moral responsibility of each and every citizen including the governmental and non-governmental organisations.”

2.     “The animals require food, water, shelter, normal behaviour, medical care, self-determination.”; “Animals may be mute but we as a society have to speak on their behalf.”; “Community dogs (stray/street dogs) have the right to foodand citizens have the right to feed community dogs”

3.     “every community dog is a territorial being and therefore, community dogs must be fed and tended to at places within their territory.” ; “within their territory which arenot frequented, or less frequented, and sparingly used by the general public and residents.”; “community dogs live in ‘packs‘ and care should be taken by the AWBI and RWAs to see that each ‘pack’ ideally has different designated areas for feeding even if that means designating multiple areas in a locality.”; “AWBI in consultation with Resident Welfare Associations or Municipal Corporation (in case RWA is not available)” has a duty to designate such areas for feeding of stray dogs.

4.     “All Law enforcement authorities shall ensure that no harassment or hindrance is caused to the person feeding street dog at the designated feeding spot”;“until and unless it is causing harm or harassment” to other person,such other person cannot “restrict the other from feeding of dogs”; “Resident Welfare Associations or Municipal Corporation (in case RWA is not available) to ensure that every community dog in every area has access to food and water”if those who look after them and feed them are unavailable.

5.     “The dogs have to be sterilized and vaccinated and returned to the same area.” and “cannot be removed by the Municipality.”;“Municipal Corporations at the request of the RWA and / or local authority or persons volunteering to take such responsibility shall be responsible for having the stray dogs registered / vaccinated / sterilised.”“community to get theirstreet dog population sterilized through an NGO engaged in Dog sterilization programme.”

 

DATED: March 4 2022.(not cited). Citations of:

·       Animal Welfare Board of India vs. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles and Ors.:(2015) SCC ONLINE SC 1193; LQ/SC/2015/1541; 2016 (8) SCJ 314; 2016 (10) SCALE 131.

·       Dr. Maya D. Chablani vs. Smt. Radha Mittal and Ors.: 2021 SCC Online Del 3599.

 

ISSUES:

Basically, the petitioner’s argued that:

1.     High Court” guidelines, if implemented,may increase risk to lives.

2.     Stray dogs can kill not only people but also animals, as they operate on their instincts.

3.     High Court’s order is not well-informed about realities and current laws.

4.     Only the Delhi High Court has shown deviance, while other high courts have followed the directions of the Supreme Court, dismissing petitions involving stray dogs.

 

PRECEDENTS(CITED IN THE PRESENT CASE):

In the instant case, the 2015 Supreme Court order was highlighted, However, the cases that have inspired the Delhi High Court order were:

·       State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534 (compassion for living creatures) COW-SLAUGHTER BAN.

·       Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 (JALLIKATTU BAN). Rights of animals under the Constitution, Statutes, Indian culture, etc were looked into.

·       Animal Welfare Board of India v. People For Elimination of Stray, (2016) SCC OnLine SC 222.Apex court considered equally the need to stop wanton killing of stray dogs though at that moment, it could not evolve any strategy for the same, thus only directed the authorities to proceed further with enforcement of the 1960 Act and the 2001 Rules.

·       Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray, (2016) 10 SCC 684

The Supreme Court reasserted the need for a proper implementation of the PCA Act 1960.

·       People for Animals v. Md Mohazzim, 2015 SCC OnLine Delhi 9508 (fundamental right of birds against commercial exploitation)

·       Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online Utt 645the words that we have to be compassionate towards animals, for whom we as members of society have to speak because they have emotions, even though they are mute, were imported into the Delhi High Court order from this case only. That animals have right to food, etc and to self-determination is mentioned in Narayan Dutt judgment.

·       Re Effective Implementation of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and its Rules v. The State Government through its Chief Secretary, (2018) SCC OnLine Mani79. The court has directed the State government to effectively implement the PCA Act 1960, because animals are a support for the economy of the nation.

·       Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 704The Haryana High Court acknowledged animals as legal beings and people of Haryana as their parents.

·       Citizens for the Welfare and Protection of Animals v.State, W.P. (Crl.) No. 467/2009the court demanded framing guidelines for feeding stray dogs, in order to enable feeders to feed the stray dogs free from harassment at the hands of the neighbours.

·       Urvashi Vashist v. Residents Welfare Association, W.P. (C) 2556/2021 and CM APPL. 75351/2021. AWBI, the RWA and the SHO were directed to deliberate upon the dog-feeding issue and effectuate the decisions taken.

JUDGMENT (ORDER):

The Apex Court allowed the Special Leave Petition of the NGO, against the order dated 24 June 2021 of the High Court of Delhi, and imposed a stay on the order of the subordinate court, which advocated the right to be fed, of the community dogs, by the dog-lovers. The Court has also demanded a response to the notices within 6 weeks, which in this order, it has issued to the Government of Delhi, to other private respondents who are parties to this case,

and to the Animal Welfare Board of India, a statutory body constituted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and which falls under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change.