The controversy surrounding community dogs in residential societies was reignited on Tuesday in the wake of the death of a seven-month-old who was mauled by one inside a housing complex in Noida’s Sector 100.
The country’s legal regime, however, presents a complex scenario in dealing with such incidents.
Article 51A of the Constitution, which is part of the directive principle of state policy, lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and “to have compassion for living creatures”.
The 2015 guidelines of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), a statutory body constituted under the Prevention of Cruelty Animals Act, 1960, occupy the field in so far as pets and community dogs are concerned.
The guidelines make it clear that no residential society can frame a regulation to ban the keeping of pet dogs or the use of lifts by them. While pet owners should leash their pets in all common areas, they cannot be compelled to use muzzles. Since there is no central or state law requiring the cleaning of pet excreta by pet owners, the 2015 guidelines state RWAs cannot impose fines on pet owners either.
With regard to community dogs, AWBI underlines that beating and driving away of street dogs are not allowed and they cannot be culled at all. They can merely be sterilised under the 2001 Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, vaccinated and then released back into the same territory or locality.
There is no law that prohibits the feeding of community dogs, hold the 2015 guidelines, adding the caregivers and RWAs can amicably earmark feeding spots inside the residential complexes. The AWBI maintains that if a dog resorts to biting in self-defense due to any aggression or hostility, “the human aggressors shall be the only ones to blame”.
To that end, the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court have upheld the rights of community dogs while observing they have a right to be fed and to be treated with compassion.
While ordering that community dogs have to be fed at designated areas, and that care-givers or feeders have the right to feed them, Delhi high court in July 2021 said in exercising this right, they must not impinge upon the rights of others and that adequate care and caution should be taken ensure that it does not violate the rights of others or cause any harm, hindrance, harassment or nuisance to other members of the society. “It is the duty and responsibility of the RWA or Municipal Corporation and all Government authorities including…Police to provide all assistance and ensure that there is no hindrance to caregivers or feeders…”
Supreme Court later upheld the orders on May 19, 2022 after initially staying the landmark judgement.
With regard to punishment or compensation, Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes imprisonment up to six months if a pet owner, “knowingly or negligently” fails to take sufficient measures against the probable danger their pet poses.
However,there is no legal provision for granting compensation for injuries or deaths caused due to attacks by community dogs, according to a reply by the ministry of fisheries and animal husbandry in Lok Sabha in August.
Kerala, however, is the only state in India to have a committee constituted on the orders of the top court, headed by S Siri Jagan, a former judge of the Kerala high court, to decide compensations for cases of community dog bites.
The ministry also said that the community dogs’ population has come down from 17.14 million in 2012 to 15.31 million in 2019 according to the livestock census.
The Supreme Court is currently seized of a clutch of petitions pertaining to the community dog “menace” as well as repugnancy in guidelines framed by the Centre and states on a spate of issues, including the birth control measures.
In November 2015, the apex court had restrained all states and UTs to take any illegal action on culling of community dogs, emphasising the local authorities have a sacrosanct duty to provide sufficient number of dog pounds, including animal shelters, which may be managed by the animal welfare organizations. It pointed out that community dogs must be released back into the same territory after their sterilisation.
The 2015 order had also asked all the high courts not to pass any order relating to the 1960 Act and the 2001 birth control rules.
On October 12 this year, a top court bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna issued a clarificatory order stating that all high courts are free to hear the individual writ petitions relating to community dogs since its 2015 order cannot be construed to mean that cases from all states must be heard only by the Supreme Court.
“We perceive and believe that there are and would be individual cases that raise grievance relating to the applicability and enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 as well as the state laws which may require urgent hearing and decisions would depend upon relevant prevailing facts in an area or location,” it said.
Meanwhile, experts say an effective animal birth control (ABC) programme is the need of the hour and bodies need to work with local stray dog feeders and RWAs to sterilise dogs, instead of looking to relocate them. “These are not stray dogs, but community dogs and even the courts have remarked that they belong with humans,” Ambika Shukla, director, Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Center (SGACC) and an animal welfare activist, said.
