Feeding Community Animals is a Constitutional Duty; Housing Societies Must Comply with Animal Birth Control Rules: Bombay High Court

Cruelty Towards Stray Dogs is Against Constitutional Ethos and Statutory Provisions - Bombay High Court upheld the validity of Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which mandates housing societies to designate feeding spots for community animals. The Court restrained the petitioners, Seawoods Estates Ltd., from obstructing designated feeders, municipal authorities, or residents from feeding stray dogs within the society premises.

A Division Bench of Hon’ble Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Hon’ble Justice Advait M. Sethna emphasized:
"To hate stray dogs and/or treat them with cruelty can never be an acceptable approach, as an act of cruelty to such animals would be against the Constitutional ethos and statutory provisions."

The case arose from a challenge by Seawoods Estates Ltd. and six others to the constitutionality of Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, under which Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and Apartment Owner Associations (AOAs) are required to provide feeding spots for community animals. The petitioners sought to prevent residents, including the added respondent, Leela Varma, from feeding stray dogs on the society premises, claiming that it caused inconvenience and disturbance.

The Court, however, dismissed these objections, emphasizing the fundamental rights of animals and the constitutional duties of citizens to show compassion towards living creatures, as enshrined in Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India.

Seawoods Estates Ltd., a residential society in Maharashtra, filed a writ petition seeking to prohibit feeding of community dogs within its premises. The petitioners challenged Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, arguing that the rule imposed an undue burden on housing societies and violated their autonomy.

The added respondent, Leela Varma, countered that Rule 20 required societies to provide designated feeding spots for animals, and her right to feed stray dogs was constitutionally protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. She alleged harassment by the society, which had restricted entry to her domestic staff and obstructed her efforts to care for the dogs.

The Court also noted that Rule 20 is framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which mandates animal welfare measures and prohibits unnecessary cruelty towards animals.

The petitioners challenged Rule 20, arguing that requiring housing societies to provide feeding spots for stray dogs violated their fundamental rights.

The Court dismissed this argument, holding: "The 2023 Rules cannot be said to have been enacted in a vacuum. They have a factual, constitutional, and legislative context. The statutory framework ensures the protection of animal rights, which are recognized under Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Articles 14, 21, and 51-A(g) of the Constitution."

The Court further stated that Rule 20 achieves a balance between animal welfare and human convenience by mandating the designation of feeding spots and times that minimize conflict with residents.

The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547, which recognized animals as sentient beings entitled to rights under the law.

Quoting from A Nagaraja, the Court observed: "Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which includes all forms of life, including animal life, that are necessary for human life. Animals’ well-being and welfare are statutorily recognized under Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

The Court further held: "The right to dignity and fair treatment is not confined to human beings alone but extends to animals as well. Acts of cruelty towards animals violate constitutional values and statutory provisions."

The Court emphasized that housing societies are obligated to comply with Rule 20 and provide feeding spots for community animals. It referred to earlier judgments, including Sharmila Sankar v. Union of India, which held that RWAs and AOAs must designate feeding areas to ensure the welfare of stray animals and avoid conflict with residents.

The Court noted: "It would not be appropriate for petitioner no.1 to take a position contrary to the rules and cause any hindrance to persons like the added respondent, who is intending to take care of these animals."

The Court acknowledged the fundamental rights of individuals like Leela Varma, who feed and care for community animals. It noted that her rights under Articles 14 and 21 were being infringed by the society’s actions.

The Court warned the petitioners:
"Petitioners cannot resort to or breach the fundamental rights guaranteed to the added respondent merely because they object to feeding of dogs within the premises."

The Court directed the petitioners to refrain from obstructing the municipal authorities, designated feeders, or residents from caring for stray animals.

The Court concluded: "Acts of cruelty towards animals or obstruction to lawful feeding cannot be tolerated, as they violate constitutional ethos and statutory provisions. Societies must adhere to Rule 20 and facilitate humane treatment of community animals."

Date of Decision: January 21, 2025