E-Paper
Kabutarkhanas row: Bombay HC says it didn’t order closure, flags health concern
The court said it would consider appointing an expert committee to assess the impact of kabutarkhanas and make recommendations to the government.
The Bombay high court on Thursday clarified that it had not passed any order directing the closure of ‘kabutarkhanas’ (pigeon-feeding spots) in Mumbai, but had refrained from staying the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) decision to shut them down.
“It was the BMC’s decision (to close kabutarkhanas) which was challenged before us. We did not pass any order. We only did not grant any interim relief,” a bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Arif Doctor was quoted as saying by PTI news agency during the hearing of petitions challenging the civic body's move.
The court's remarks came after sheets were placed over several ‘kabutarkhanas’ earlier this week, sparking protests. Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis had claimed the closures followed a court directive, a position now contradicted by the bench.
While asserting that it had not ordered the closures, the court stressed the need to prioritise public health. “All medical reports point at irreversible damage caused by pigeons. Human life is of paramount importance,” the bench said.
The judges said they would consider appointing an expert committee to assess the impact of ‘kabutarkhanas’ and make recommendations to the government.
“We are only concerned about public health. These are public places where thousands of people are residing... There has to be a balance. There are few who want to feed (pigeons). It is for the government to now take a decision. There is nothing adversarial in this,” the court said.
Referring to potential health hazards, the bench observed, “If something affects the larger health of senior citizens and kids, then it should be looked into. There has to be a balance.”
The court made it clear that it was not equipped to adjudicate on the scientific or medical aspects of the issue. “The court is not an expert to decide the issue. A scientific study needs to be conducted before any decision is taken,” it said.
Directing the matter to be listed for further hearing on August 13, the court requested the advocate general of Maharashtra to remain present, so that it could pass an order on forming an expert committee.
“There is a wealth of medical material that needs to be looked into and the court is not an expert to examine the same,” the bench said.
“Hence, in our opinion, the state can consider appointing a committee as it is the guardian and custodian of public health and of the citizens,” it added.
With PTI inputs
