No coercive action for feeding stray dogs, SC orders Nagpur muncipal corporation

The Supreme Court did not stay the October 21 order of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court against feeding community dogs but told the municipal corporation to not penalise people. “If stray dogs are not fed, they will become more aggressive,” the bench reasoned

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday said that no coercive action should be taken against citizens feeding stray dogs after the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court on October 21 passed a blanket ban on feeding stray dogs and directed the municipal authorities to penalise citizens violating its order with a fine of ₹200.

Animal lovers display placards during the silent gathering to request the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court to revoke its ruling against the feeding of stray dogs at Powai in Mumbai (Pratik Chorge/HT File Photo)

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari found the omnibus ban imposed by the high court to be unreasonable. “If stray dogs are not fed, they will become more aggressive,” the bench said, agreeing that some part of the high court order needed modification. To work out a solution, the court asked the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) and the Animal Welfare Board to respond by November 16.

Without staying the high court order, the top court directed the NMC not to take any coercive action against citizens who violate the high court order.

On October 21, the high court passed a slew of directions on two petitions by citizens in Nagpur that sought an urgent solution to what they described as the growing menace of stray dogs.

The high court said the problem caused by stray dogs had “increased beyond tolerable levels”. As an interim solution, the high court ordered: “As an interim solution it said, “No resident of Nagpur and areas surrounding it shall feed or make any attempt to feed the stray dogs in public places, gardens etc. We further direct the Municipal Commissioner of NMC to ensure that no such feeding at any place except own homes of such persons shall be undertaken.”

The high court further directed that “If any person is interested in feeding stray dogs, he shall first adopt the stray dog/bitch, bring it to home, register it with Municipal Authorities or put it in some dogs shelter home and then showering his love and affection on it, may feed it while taking its personal care in all respect.”

The top court disagreed. It said, “Adoption should not mean strays will have to be brought into the homes of the feeders.”

The top court’s order came on a petition by Swati Sudhirchandra Chatterjee challenging the high court directions, arguing that there was no law that prohibits feeding community dogs. “To have compassion for living creatures is a constitutional mandate, as reflected in Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution (classified as Fundamental Duties).” She further pointed out that the high court order runs contrary to the legal mandate under Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 which secures the right to food and shelter for every animal.

The high court order directed the Commissioner of Police and Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural) to control the menace by using its power under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Police Act. This provision allows police to detain, sell or destroy any stray dog found wandering in the street or any public place. Following this decision, the corporation started capturing stray dogs on a large scale in the city.