ABC is not the last word on stray dog problems

Meghna Uniyal, Gurugram

SEVERAL laws at state and Central level protect citizens from being subjected to stray dog attacks and ensure public health and safety. Yet, the common misconception is that only the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules are the ‘law’ and must be strictly adhered to. In reality, there is a host of legislation that refutes the ABC Rules. 

The ABC Rules, notified by the Ministry of Culture in 2001 and amended by the Department of Animal Husbandry in 2023, require the sterilization, maintenance and feeding of stray dogs on the streets and prohibit their removal even if they attack or kill citizens.

In 2008, the Bombay High Court had laid down that the ABC Rules do not override the State Municipal Act and upheld the discretionary powers of the municipality to remove or destroy stray dogs causing a nuisance or danger to citizens. This was challenged in the Supreme Court by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) in 2009.

In May 2024, refusing to give prevalence to the ABC Rules, the Supreme Court dismissed the AWBI SLP (Special Leave Petition) and sent the matter back to the states, stating:

“We clarify that all issues raised… are kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceedings, before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. Whether be it may the mechanism in terms of the new Rules deficient/insufficient or repugnant to the Constitution or the parent statute(s); in our considered view, which can be best considered by the Constitutional Courts or other Forums accounting for all factors and circumstances, local in nature, being germane for adjudication for them and to decide it independently.”

Public health and safety are state subjects and Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty of citizens. Animal/disease control are governed by several Central statutes, state Acts, BNS provisions and Supreme Court judgments, all of which override and supersede the subordinate ABC Rules.

 

In fact, no law or Act envisages the maintenance and feeding of stray dogs in public places or private, gated premises nor recognizes that stray dogs have “territories” in these areas. Even the parent legislation, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, recognizes their negative impact on people as well as their own suffering as homeless animals, and prohibits their abandonment on the streets and specifically requires their permanent removal and/or humane euthanasia.

 

The Rights of People with Disabilities Act mandates the removal of all physical and environmental barriers that impair mobility, accessibility and inclusivity of disabled citizens in public places. The visually impaired and other disabled citizens use sticks which aggravate aggression in stray dogs. Often unable to see, hear or avoid stray dogs, they are very vulnerable  to animal attacks, injury and death.

The Prevention and Control of Infectious and Contagious Diseases in Animals Act states that no animal suffering from any of the 25 listed scheduled diseases may be maintained in any public place and any stray dog found to be infected with any scheduled disease must be euthanized by the municipality.

All state Municipal Acts, Police Acts and local bylaws require local authorities to provide safe and disease-free streets, footpaths and public places for citizens. Relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita prohibit and penalize acts that cause public nuisance, danger, spread diseases and endanger lives of citizens, including “negligent conduct” with an animal, pet or unowned.

All areas inside residential societies are paid for and jointly owned private property of residents. No rules can force the maintenance and feeding of stray animals inside private gated premises. The same is applicable to schools, hospitals, offices, etc. This was reinforced by the Madras and Odisha High Courts directing the removal of all stray dogs from IIT Madras and the Law College premises, respectively.  Last year the Supreme Court itself issued a circular prohibiting the provisioning of food to stray animals inside its premises as it leads to their congregation, causing  animal attacks and hygiene issues.

The apex court’s numerous judgments protect and reinforce Article 21 — the fundamental right to life, liberty, livelihood, peaceful sleep, safe shelters, disease-free and obstruction-free public places, footpaths and streets and freedom of movement. The presence of stray dogs and throwing of food packets to “save” them in public places, streets and private, gated premises, violate all these provisions, rights of citizens and judgments.

Article 51A(g) is often and inexplicably used to justify the ABC Rules. It lays down an unenforceable duty — “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures” — and makes no reference whatsoever to stray dogs or their feeding on the streets. A 2016 Supreme Court judgment prohibits the feeding of pigeons even from one’s own private balcony, citing “nuisance” for other residents.

In January 2024, the Supreme Court in the Bilkis Bano case stated: “In a democracy, where rule of law is its essence, it has to be preserved and enforced, particularly by courts of law. Compassion and sympathy have no role to play where rule of law is required to be enforced.” Undefined, subjective notions of “compassion” and self-styled ‘duties’ cannot be used to violate the fundamental rights of citizens.

The Nagaraja judgment of the Supreme Court is often cited deceptively by stray dog activists and the AWBI as giving “rights” to animals. However, in May 2023, a five-judge constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court overturned the same and laid down that the Indian Constitution neither recognizes nor gives rights to animals. It also upheld the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, stating — “Exceptions are incorporated based on the Doctrine of Necessity. Clause (b) to Section 11(3) deals with the destruction of stray dogs, out of necessity, otherwise, it would be harmful to human beings.”

It is indeed time for High Courts as well as authorities to act “in accordance with law.”

 

Meghna Uniyal is Director, Humane Foundation for People and Animals