BMC’s decision to close Kabootarkhanas, not ours and ban on feeding still stands, will form expert panel: HC

The HC said it will order the constitution of a committee of experts next week to ascertain the correctness of BMC’s decision.

A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor was hearing pleas by animal rights activists and Trustees of Dadar Kabootarkhana Trust against BMC’s crackdown.

Last month, the BMC closed Kabootarkhanas based on the state government’s directive, citing serious health hazards due to pigeon droppings and feathers.

“It was BMC’s decision which was before the court. We did not pass any order (on our own). We only did not grant any interim relief (for feeding)… This is about societal or public health which is most important. It is about thousands of people who reside near Kabootarkhanas and passerby. If something affects the public health of senior citizens and children, then it should be looked into. There has to be a balance, “Justice Kulkarni orally remarked.

The judge added, “We will leave it to the wisdom of the state government so far as withdrawing and for the BMC to take an appropriate view. Our parameters of adjudication are limited,” the bench orally remarked.

In response to protests and the forceful opening of Dadar (West) Kabootarkhana to offer grains to pigeons on Wednesday, the bench said, “We will not expect any citizen of this country to disrespect the court’s orders…. The moment the court passes an order, there is a rule of law in this country… If nobody has any respect for the court and the orders passed by it, please tell us. We will not take up matters. Or contrary to the court’s orders, you want to form opinions, please form them.”

The bench further ordered that “all earlier orders will continue in every respect” till the next hearing on August 13, which will also include no demolition of heritage Kabootarkhanas.

The Court, noting that “human health to be paramount,” had earlier refused to pass an interim order permitting feeding of pigeons and had also directed BMC to lodge FIRs against persons “illegally” feeding pigeons at Kabootarkhanas and to cover the feeding areas.”

The bench on Thursday however, permitted petitioners to apply to BMC if they intended to feed pigeons and directed BMC to hear applicants and all stakeholders before passing an appropriate decision considering “larger issue of public health.” The HC said petitioners can file applications seeking vacating of earlier court orders.

The bench also recorded that “what would stare at the citizens” is a balance of fundamental duties to develop scientific temper, humanism, spirit of enquiry and reform with the duties to improve natural environment, wildlife and compassion for living creatures. It added that it was the duty of the BMC and state government to protect the health of citizens and these authorities are “custodians” of the citizens’ rights.

The court then referred to “wealth of medical material” including opinions of Dr. Sujeet Rajan of the Bombay Hospital and Dr. Amita U Athavale, head of pulmonary medicine at civic-run KEM Hospital, which indicated that congregation of pigeons and their droppings cause “irreversible damages” to human health.

Rajan advised “dismantling of pigeon-breeding areas at the earliest” and also suggested focusing on such areas within housing societies.

However, the HC said it was “not an expert to examine” the issue, and would hear Advocate General Birendra Saraf for the state government to appoint a committee to ascertain BMC decision.

The HC said the same would enable “to balance the interest of the large population in the state of which Mumbai is an integral part” and issues can be resolved through the panel’s opinion.

In the event the expert committee upholds BMC’s closure, the bench said, “such opinion needs to prevail in the larger public health of the citizens” and “required to be respected” with neither the state nor the BMC to take a contrary position.

The HC said, thereafter, alternative “workable mechanisms” can be found for such birds with due consultation with experts including those from Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) and Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), along with petitioners’ suggestions. “In our opinion, this is the only way the impasse can be resolved,” the bench noted.