Delhi, 15th November 2022: After the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court on October 21 passed a general ban on feeding stray dogs and instructed the municipal authorities to fine citizens who disobeyed its order with a fine of 200 rupees, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that no coercive action should be taken against citizens feeding stray dogs.
The omnibus prohibition imposed by the high court was ruled to be inappropriate by a panel of justices led by Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari. The bench agreed that some of the high court decisions needed to be modified, stating that stray dogs would become more hostile if they were not fed. The court requested responses by November 16 from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) and the Animal Welfare Board to come up with a resolution.
The top court instructed the NMC not to use coercion against anyone who disobeyed the high court judgement but did not stay the high court’s ruling.
On October 21, the high court issued several directives in response to two petitions filed by Nagpur residents calling for an immediate end to what they called the spreading stray dog epidemic.
According to the top court, the issue with stray dogs has “grown beyond reasonable proportions.” The high court issued the following order as a temporary fix: “No resident of Nagpur and the areas nearby shall feed or attempt to feed stray dogs in public areas, gardens, etc. We further instruct the Municipal Commissioner of NMC to make sure that no such feeding is done anywhere other than the individuals’ own houses.”
In addition, the high court mandated that “If any individual is interested in feeding stray dogs, he shall first adopt the stray dog/bitch, bring it to house, register it with Municipal Authorities or put it in some dogs shelter home and then pour his love and compassion on it.”
The highest court dissented. “Adoption should not require bringing strays into the feeders’ homes,” it read.
The top court’s decision was reached in response to a plea filed by Swati Sudhirchandra Chatterjee, who contested the high court’s directives and claimed that no legislation forbade feeding neighbourhood dogs. According to Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution (which is categorised under Fundamental Duties), “to feel compassion for living creatures is a fundamental mandate.” She continued by pointing out that the high court order violates Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which guarantees every animal the right to food and shelter.
By utilising its authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the high court’s ruling asked the Commissioner of Police and Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural), to manage the threat. Any stray dog found wandering on the street or any other public area may be detained, sold, or destroyed under the terms of this law. After making this choice, the corporation began rounding up stray canines in the city on a huge scale.