Animal Welfare Board of India Case

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Sunday, March 24, 2024

Printed For: Prachi Acharya
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 691/2009
Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles
2015 SCC OnLine SC 1193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
(BEFORE DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 691/2009

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19/12/2008 in ASWP
No. 6257/2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay)
Animal Welfare Board of India .…. Petitioner(s)
v.
People for Elimination of Stray Troubles & ors. .…. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for intervention and impleadment and interim relief and office
report)
(For final disposal)
With S.L.P.(C) No. 1627/2009
(With interim relief and office report)
S.L.P.(C) No. 1740/2009
S.L.P.(C) No. 11467/2009
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C) No. 13004/2009
(With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and office report)
S.L.P.(C) No. 13772/2012
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C) No. 4453/2013
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and interim relief and office report)
S.L.P.(C) No. 5899/2013
S.L.P.(C) No. 5900/2013
S.L.P.(C) No. 17112/2013
S.L.P.(C)…CC 16880/2015
(With appln.(s) for impleadment as petitioner and appln.(s) for impleadment as
party respondent and appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
Decided on November 18, 2015
Animal, Birds and Fish — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — Ss. 13 and 38 r/w Rr. 4, 6, 7,
8, 9 and 10 of Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001 — Stray dogs — Role of municipality and local bodies
— Local authorities have a sacrosanct duty to provide sufficient number of dog pounds, including
animal kennels/shelters, which may be managed by the animal welfare organizations — Also, local
authorities are required to provide requisite number of dog vans with ramps for the capture and
transportation of street dogs; one driver and two trained dog catchers for each dog van; an
ambulance-cum-clinical van as mobile centre for sterlisation and immunisation; incinerators for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
disposal of carcasses and periodic repair of shelter or pound — Interim direction to all State Municipal
Corporations, Municipal Committees, District Boards and local bodies shall be guided by the Act and
the Rules — Further, held, it is the duty and obligation of the Animal Welfare Board to see that they
are followed with all seriousness — Parties at liberty to file affidavits which may contain the data
relating to stray dogs and dog bites and the steps taken by the local bodies with regard to
destruction/removal of the stray dogs
ORDER
1. All the applications for intervention stand allowed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the intervenors, Mr. Dushyant Dave,
learned senior counsel, the Amicus Curiae, engaged in Writ Petition (C) No. 599 of
2015 [Anupam Trivathi v. Union of India].
3. Though this matter was to be finally heard today, yet due to paucity of time, it
has not been finally taken up for hearing for the purpose of final disposal. That apart,
number of issues have also cropped up including the defensibility of the judgment and
orders passed by the High Courts of Bombay, Kerala and Karnataka. We have been
apprised that initially in 2006, the Kerala High Court had passed a judgment
dismissing the writ petition, which was filed for protection of the stray dogs. Recently,
another Division Bench has passed a judgment on 4th November, 2015, taking the
view that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001, (for short, ‘the 2001 Rules’) shall
prevail over the provisions contained in Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala
Panchayat Act, 1994.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for
the Bombay Municipal Corporation that the legislation passed by the State of
Maharashtra forming the subject matter of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888,
as amended by Section 191-BA - Control and other provisions relating to dogs in the
year 1975, shall withstand the test of repugnancy if challenged as there was assent
from the President of India under Article 200 of the Constitution. Be that as it may, we
do not intend to enter into the said debate today.
5. There can be no trace of doubt that there has to be compassion for dogs and
they should not be killed in an indiscriminate manner, but indubitably the lives of the
human beings are to be saved and one should not suffer due to dog bite because of
administrative lapse.
6. In course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, except the
Animal Welfare Board, would pyramid their case on the plinth and foundation that the
dogs, who have various uses for human society and have served the society for
centuries and also have constitutional protection under Article 51A of the Constitution
of India and the laws made, have to be taken care of. The resistance from the other
side is that a bite by a stray dog creates menace in the society and in the name of
compassion for dogs, the lives of human beings cannot be sacrificed.
7. Mr. Raj Panjwani, learned senior counsel appearing for the Animal Welfare Board,
supported by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel in that regard, would submit
that the legislation by the Parliament has struck a balance by legislating the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, (for short, ‘the 1960 Act’) and the 2001
Rules.
8. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel, who has been appointed as Amicus
Curiae, has interestingly produced certain writings on the stray dogs by Mahatama
Gandhi, the Father of the Nation. He has drawn our attention to various paragraphs,
but we shall refer to the same at the time of final disposal. The said write-up be kept
on record.
9. For the purpose of certain interim order, we have to prima facie understand the
provisions of the 1960 Act. Section 2(b) of the said Act defines the “Board” which is
established under Section 4 and reconstituted from time to time under Section 5A.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2(e) defines “local authority” which means a municipal committee, district
board or other authority for the time being invested by law with the control and
administration of any matters within a specified local area. Section 9 deals with the
functions of the Board. The said provision reads as under:
“Functions of the Board: The functions of the Board shall be Board
(a) to keep the law in force in, India for the prevention of cruelty to animals
under constant study and advise the Government on the amendments to be
undertaken in any such law from time to time;
(b) to advise the Central Government on the making of rules under this Act with
a view to preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals generally, and
more particularly when they are being transported from one place to another
or when they are used as performing animals or when they are kept in
captivity or confinement;
(c) to advise the Government or any local authority or other person on
improvements in the design of vehicles so as to lessen the burden on draught
animals;
(d) to take all such steps as the Board may think fit for 11(amelioration of
animals) by encouraging or providing for, the construction of sheds, water-
troughs and the like and by providing for veterinary assistance to animals:
(e) to advise the Government or any local authority or other person in the design
of slaughter-houses or the maintenance of slaughter houses or in connection
with slaughter of animals so that unnecessary pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is eliminated in the pre-slaughter stages as far as
possible, and animals are killed; wherever necessary, in as humane a manner
as possible;
(f) to take all such steps as the Board may think fit to ensure that unwanted
animals are destroyed by local authorities, whenever it is necessary to do so,
either instantaneously or after being rendered insensible to pain or suffering.
(g) to encourage by the grant of financial assistance or otherwise, 12(the
formation or establishment of pinjrapoles, rescue homes, animal shelters,
sanctuaries and the like) where animals and birds may find a shelter when
they have become old and useless or when they need protection:
(h) to co-operate with, and co-ordinate the work of, associations or bodies
established for the purpose of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to
animals or for the protection of animals and birds;
(i) to give financial and other assistance to animal welfare organisations
functioning in any local area or to encourage the formation of animal welfare
organisations in any local area which shall work under the general supervision
and guidance of the Board;
(j) to advise the Government on matters relating to the medical care and
attention which may be provided in animal hospital, and to give financial and
other assistance to animal hospitals whenever the Board thinks it necessary to
do so;
(k) to impart education in relation to the humane treatment of animals and to
encourage the formation of public opinion against the infliction of unnecessary
pain or suffering to animals and for the promotion of animal welfare by means
of lectures, books, posters, cinematographic exhibitions and the like;
(l) to advise the Government on any matter connected with animal welfare or the
prevention of infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals.
(Underlining is ours)”
10. We have emphasized on clause (f) as it empowers the Board to ensure that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unwanted animals are destroyed by local authorities, wherever it is necessary to do so,

either instantaneously or after being rendered insensible to pain of suffering. The
significant words are “the Board has to form an opinion”.
11. Section 11 deals with treating animals cruelly. Section 12 provides for penalty
of practising phooka or doom dev. Section 13 of the Act deals with destruction of
suffering animals. The said provision is reproduced below:
“13. Destruction of suffering animals.-
(1) Where the owner of an animal is convicted of an offence under section 11, it
shall be lawful for the court, if the court is satisfied that it would be cruel to
keep the animal alive, to direct that the animal be destroyed and to assign the
animals to any suitable person for that purpose, and the person to whom such
animal is so assigned shall as soon as possible, destroy such animal or cause
such animal to be destroyed in his presence without unnecessary suffering:
and any reasonable expense incurred in destroying the animal may be ordered
by the court, if the court is satisfied that it would be cruel to keep the animal
alive, to direct that the animal be destroyed and to assign the animal to any
reasonable expense incurred in destroying the animal mal be ordered by the
court to be recovered from the owner as if it were a fine:
Provided that unless the owner assents thereto, no order shall be made
under this section except upon the evidence of a veterinary officer in charge
of the area.
(2) When any magistrate, commissioner of police or district superintendent of
police has reason to believe that an offence under section 11 has been
committed in respect of any animal, he may direct the immediate destruction
of the animal, if in his opinion, it would be cruel to keep the animal alive.
(3) Any police officer above the rank of a constable or any person authorised by
the State Government in this behalf who finds any animal so diseased or so
severely injured or in such a physical condition that in his opinion it cannot be
removed without cruelty, may, if the owner is absent or refuses his consent to
the destruction of the animal, forth with summon the veterinary officer in
charge of the area in which the animal is found, and if the veterinary officer
certifies that the animal is mortally injured or so severely injured or in such a
physical condition that it would be cruel to keep it alive, the police officer or
the person authorised, as the case may be, may, after obtaining orders from a
magistrate, destroy the animal injured or cause it to be destroyed; 22 (in such
manner as may be prescribed).
(4) No appeal shall lie from any order of a magistrate for the destruction of an
animal.”
12. Section 38 provides for power to make rules. In exercise of power under sub-
sections (1) and (2) of Section 38 of the 1960 Act, the 2001 Rules, have been framed.
Rule 2(c) of the Rules mentions about the “Board” and gives the same colour and
character as in Section 4 of the 1960 Act. The said rule reads as follows:
““Board” means the Animal Welfare Board of India, established under section 4
and as reconstituted under section 5A of the Act.”
13. Rule 4 deals with formation of Committee and Rule 5 deals with the functions of
the Committee. The said Rule being relevant, is reproduced below:
“5. Functions of the Committee.- The committee constituted under rule 4 shall
be responsible for planning and management of dog control programme in
accordance with these rules. The committee may:
(a) issue instructions for catching, transportation, sheltering, sterilisation,
vaccination, treatment and release of sterilized vaccinated or treated dogs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) authorize veterinary doctor to decide on case to case basis the need to put to
sleep critically ill or fatally injured or rabid dogs in a painless method by using
sodium pentathol. Any other method is strictly prohibited.
(c) create public awareness, solicit co-operation and funding.
(d) provide guidelines to pet dog owners and commercial breeders from time to
time.
(e) get a survey done of the number of street dogs by an independent agency.
(f) take such steps for monitoring the dog bite cases to ascertain the reasons of
dog bite, the area where it took place and whether it was from a stray or a pet
dog.
(g) keep a watch on the national and international development in the field of
research pertaining to street dogs’ control and management, development of
vaccines and cost effective methods of sterilization, vaccination, etc.
(h) the activities of the Committee shall be brought to the public notice by
announcements and advertisements.”
14. Rule 6 provides for obligations of the local authority. Rule 7 deals with
capturing/sterilisation/immunisation/release. Rule 8 deals with identification and
recording and Rule 9 provides for euthanasia of street dogs. Rule 10 deals with furious
or dumb rabid dogs.
15. As we find, the local authorities have a sacrosanct duty to provide sufficient
number of dog pounds, including animal kennels/shelters, which may be managed by
the animal welfare organizations, that apart, it is also incumbent upon the local
authorities to provide requisite number of dog vans with ramps for the capture and
transportation of street dogs; one driver and two trained dog catchers for each dog
van; an ambulance-cum-clinical van as mobile centre for sterlisation and
immunisation; incinerators for disposal of carcasses and periodic repair of shelter or
pound.
16. Rule 7 has its own significance. The procedure has to be followed before any
steps are taken. Rules 9 and 10 take care of the dogs which are desirable to be
euthanised.
17. We may note with profit that Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Bombay Municipal Corporation would contend with vehemence that
the Corporation has a duty under the Act to remove the dogs that create nuisance. As
stated earlier, we will advert to the same at a later stage, but for the present it is
suffice to say that all the State municipal corporations, municipal committees, district
boards and local bodies shall be guided by the Act and the Rules and it is the duty and
obligation of the Animal Welfare Board to see that they are followed with all
seriousness. It is also the duty of all the municipal corporations to provide
infrastructure as mandated in the statute and the rules. Once that is done, we are
disposed to think for the present that a balance between compassion to dogs and the
lives of human being, which is appositely called a glorious gift of nature, may
harmoniously co-exist.
18. Learned counsel appearing for both the sides are at liberty to file affidavits
which may contain the data of the dog bites and the steps taken by the local bodies
with regard to destruction/removal of the stray dogs. They are also at liberty to file
data pertaining to population of stray dogs. The local authorities shall file affidavits
including what kind of infrastructures they have provided, as required under the law.
Needless to emphasize, no innovative method or subterfuge should be adopted not to
carry out the responsibility under the 1960 Act or the 2001 Rules. Any kind of laxity
while carrying out statutory obligations, is not countenanced in law.
19. A copy of the order passed today be sent to the Chief Secretary of each of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States and the competent authority of Union Territories, so that they can follow the
same in letter and spirit.
20. We would also request all the High Courts not to pass any order relating to the
1960 Act and the 2001 Rules pertaining to dogs. Needless to say, all concerned as
mentioned herein-above, shall carry out this order and file their respective affidavits as
directed.
21. Let the matter be listed on 9th March, 2016.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Animal Welfare Board of India Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Animal Welfare Board of India Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Animal Welfare Board of India Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Sunday, March 24, 2024

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 691/2009

Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles

2015 SCC OnLine SC 1193

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 691/2009

unwanted animals are destroyed by local authorities, wherever it is necessary to do so,

You might also like