To hate stray dogs, treat them with cruelty can’t be an acceptable approach: Bombay HC

Advocates Nishad Nevgi, Anjalli Malekar and Samaa Shah for the petitioner raised a grievance that due to the managing committee’s decision, she is not being permitted to feed the dogs and no designated area is provided by society to feed them. Therefore, she was compelled to feed the dogs at the gate of society, making such animals vulnerable to road accidents.

The bench on March 27 (Monday) had noted that as per the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, members of the society had an obligation to prevent themselves from causing any cruelty or harassment to animals and to those who intend to take care of such animals.

The bench stated, “We expect that a sense of belonging and responsibility on such issues needs to prevail between the members of the society so as to cordially resolve these issues, and no confrontation in this regard ought to happen. Also, in the event if there is any fear or any inconvenience or danger from any of the stray dogs, being caused to children, senior citizens and/or the members of the society, it is appropriate that proper measures in that regard in consultation with experts, animal lovers, NGOs and the municipal officers can be discussed and implemented.”

It had then asked the lawyer representing the society to take instructions on the issues and inform its position “so that the animals are cared for and their rights protected in the spirit in which the law would mandate”.

It had also cautioned the society and said, “We also intend to sound a word of caution to the members of the managing committee and the other members of the society that to hate the stray dogs and/or treat them with cruelty can never be an acceptable approach, from persons of civil society, as an act of cruelty to such animals would be against the Constitutional ethos and the statutory provisions.”

The bench had warned that if the society continued to take coercive measures, “such actions would not only be contrary to provisions of law but also would amount to commission of offence”.

On Tuesday, the bench also referred to the cats within the High Court premises and said that “they are all living beings and we have to care for them”.

The bench said that some stray animals may be causing nuisance due to hunger or some breeds may be causing trouble but the case is not the same with dogs of every breed. It added, “If there is any problem with a particular dog, all these dogs can be separated.”

Justice Kulkarni also said there are abandoned dogs on Marine drive and referred to how a retired judge would feed stray dogs there.

Justice Kulkarni said, “We have to live with this. We cannot live without animals, we have to take care of them, that is what even the Supreme Court says.” The society then made a statement that there are no bouncers in its area.

The bench asked the society to consider a designated feeding spot in the parking area based on the petitioner’s request. It asked the parties to resolve the issue in “non adversarial” manner and inform the court about the outcome during the next hearing on April 6.