Explained: Citizens’ right to feed stray dogs, and the dogs’ right to food and water — now backed by Delhi HC and SC

What does the SC’s action mean?

It paves the way for community dogs to be fed either at private driveways/porches or spots designated in consultation with resident welfare associations in Delhi. It will be incumbent on the local police to ensure that no caregiver or community dog feeder is harassed.

Earlier on March 4, a division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose had stayed the operation of the High Court’s order passed on June 24, 2021.

On Thursday, a three-judge Bench comprising Justices U U Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia vacated the stay to allow the Delhi HC order to be implemented.

What did the High Court say in its 2021 order?

A single-judge Bench of the High Court had observed that animals have a right under the law to be treated with compassion, respect, and dignity, and that their protection is the “moral responsibility of each and every citizen, including the governmental and non-governmental organisations”. (‘Dr Maya D Chablani vs. Radha Mittal and Ors’, 2021)

The order by a single-judge Bench of Justice J R Midha read: “Community dogs (stray/street dogs) have the right to food and citizens have the right to feed community dogs but in exercising this right, care and caution should be taken to ensure that it does not impinge upon the rights of others or cause any harm, hindrance, harassment and nuisance to other individuals or members of the society.”

The order said that “It shall be the duty and responsibility of the RWA or Municipal Corporation and all Government authorities including…Police to provide all assistance and ensure that no hindrance is caused to the caregivers or feeders of community dogs…”

Disputes often break out over the place where dog lovers feed strays. What did the HC say about that?

The feeding of community dogs has to be done at areas designated by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) in consultation with the RWAs of the municipal corporation. The High Court said that these designated areas must be finalised keeping in mind that “every community dog is a territorial being and therefore, community dogs must be fed and tended to at places within their territory”.

Therefore, as per the HC’s order, each pack of strays should ideally have a different designated area for feeding “even if that means designating multiple areas in a locality”.

Also, strays can be fed at “the private entrance/porch/driveway of their (feeders’) house or any other place not shared with other residents”, the HC order said.

Can someone be restricted from feeding a dog?

No person can restrict another from feeding dogs, “until and unless it is causing harm or harassment to that other person”, the HC said.

Given the extreme positions that both sides are wont to take, disputes are bound to break out. Who ensures peace in case of a dispute?

The onus is on all law enforcement agencies to ensure that there is no hindrance caused to any person in carrying out activities related to street dogs at the permitted spots. Also, it is the duty of the local SHO to “ensure peace and harmony among residents of the area”, the HC said.

The HC also said that every RWA should have an Animal Welfare Committee to ensure compliance with provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and to maintain harmony between feeders and other residents. In case of a grievance, the residents must approach the committee first.

And what happens if there is no caregiver in the community?

The onus then falls on the RWAs or the civic body.

“It is the duty and obligation of every Resident Welfare Association or Municipal Corporation (in case RWA is not available), to ensure that every community dog in every area has access to food and water in the absence of caregivers or community dog feeders in the said area,” the HC order said.

Why did the Supreme Court lift the stay on the operation of the HC’s order?

The HC’s June 2021 order had come in a case of a private dispute where an appeal had been made to restrain the defendants from feeding stray dogs near the entrance of a property mentioned in the complaint before the court.

The Supreme court was told on Thursday that these two parties had resolved their dispute. After this, the court observed that the NGO seeking to challenge the HC order had no legal right to do so, as it was not party to the earlier suit, which now stood settled.

The NGO ‘Humane Foundation for People and Animals’ had mounted the challenge to the HC’s order. The NGO had contended that the High Court’s order was based on misleading, irrelevant, and factually incorrect statements, and that the court’s directions could lead to an increase of the menace of stray dogs.