AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • provisions in the Constitution of India, the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001, Action
  • Rules 9 and 10 of the aforesaid Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001,
  • Rule 8 of the aforesaid Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001,
  • SECTION 38 A PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1960
  • Rule 4 of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • provisions in the Constitution of India, the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001, Action
  • Rules 9 and 10 of the aforesaid Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001,
  • Rule 8 of the aforesaid Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001,
  • SECTION 38 A PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1960
  • Rule 4 of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses measures to tackle the serious menace of stray dogs, particularly in Mumbai and Goa. It follows consultations with the Solicitor General of India, Advocate General for the State of Goa, and other counsels, along with a review of relevant constitutional provisions, the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001, and an Action Plan formulated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The court noted the large stray dog population in Mumbai, inadequate implementation of sterilization programs, and lapsing of allocated funds, necessitating urgent and organized intervention.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. How should the menace of stray dogs be effectively controlled in Mumbai and Goa in compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates?
  2. What measures should be adopted to implement the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, particularly regarding sterilization and humane treatment of stray dogs?
  3. How to ensure that anti-rabies treatment is made accessible and affordable to victims of dog bites?
  4. What administrative framework is necessary for monitoring and managing stray dog populations effectively?

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General of India

  • Emphasized Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution, which calls for compassion towards living creatures.
  • Highlighted the Preamble of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, focusing on preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals.
  • Noted that the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, aim to reduce dog populations humanely through sterilization and participation of various stakeholders.
  • Stressed that mass killing of dogs is not a solution, based on global experience.

Other Parties (Including State and Municipal Authorities)

  • Brought to the court’s attention the large stray dog population in Mumbai and the lack of organized control measures, including ineffective sterilization programs.
  • Reported lapsing of funds allocated for sterilization and the need for affordable anti-rabies injections for the public.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory framework provided by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, emphasizing humane treatment and gradual reduction of stray dog populations through sterilization rather than mass culling. It recognized the constitutional mandate under Article 51-A(g) to show compassion to living beings. The court observed deficiencies in the implementation of existing programs and lapsing of funds, concluding that a multi-pronged and organized approach was necessary. It detailed specific administrative measures, including the establishment of large dog shelter homes, constitution of monitoring and sub-committees under the Rules, public awareness, and provision of affordable anti-rabies treatment. The reasoning focused on balancing public safety with animal welfare, ensuring compliance with legal provisions, and enhancing coordination among authorities and welfare organizations.

Holding and Implications

The court issued detailed directions for the control and management of stray dogs in Mumbai and Goa.

The directives require the State of Maharashtra and Goa to identify suitable land for large dog shelters, constitute monitoring committees and sub-committees under the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, and ensure effective implementation of sterilization and vaccination programs. The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai must ensure proper garbage removal and prohibit feeding of stray dogs in public places. The court mandated that anti-rabies injections be provided to dog bite victims at a subsidized rate of Rs. 50/-. The Bombay Municipal Corporation was directed to execute an agreement with the All India Animal Welfare Association for dog shelter and sterilization services. These measures aim to institutionalize a humane and effective approach to stray dog population control without setting new legal precedents beyond the directives given.

    All India Animal Welfare Association & Ors. v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors.

    1. P.C:— After hearing the learned Solicitor General of India, learned Advocate General for the State of Goa and various other Counsel on behalf of various parties, and after perusal of the provisions in the Constitution of India, the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001, Action Plan for control of stray Animal Menace (Monkeys, stray Dogs, stray Cattle and Pigs) formulated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests of Government of India, we are clearly of the view to tackle the serious menace of stray dogs, we have to adopt a multi-pronged approach.

    2. Mr. Goolam Vahanvati, the learned Solicitor General of India, pointed out that the Constitution of India under Article 51-A(g) exhorts all citizens of this Country to have compassion for living creatures. Mr.

    3. Vahanvati also pointed out the preamble of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which emphasises,

    “to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of Cruelty to Animals.”

    4. The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 have been enacted under section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, with a scheme to reduce the dog population by sterlization and minimization of stray dogs by participation of animal welfare organisations, private individuals and local authorities. The scheme formulated under these Rules is not intended to jeopardize human lives but at the same time to treat animals with care, compassion and in a humane manner so as to achieve gradual reduction and stabilization in the population of stray dogs on a long term basis. Rules 9 and 10 of the aforesaid Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, provide for controlling and killing of incurably ill, mortally wounded and rabid dogs. Mr. Vahanvati, also pointed out from the experience all over the world that mass killing of dogs was not a solution at all.

    5. It was also brought to our notice that in the City of Mumbai, including Greater Mumbai, there is a very large stray dog population of about 6 lakh dogs. There is no organized manner in which rabid and furious dogs are being controlled. It was also pointed out that even the sterlization of dogs programme is not being implemented in an organized manner. It is unfortunate that a sum of Rs. 4/- Crores allotted by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for the year 2006-2007 for sterlization of dogs has lapsed, without a rupee being spent. We are informed for the year 2007-2008, the allocation by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for sterlization of Dogs is Rs. 9/- Crores. There is a dire necessity to provide Anti-rabies injections at a reasonable rate, as a large section of population cannot afford the prohibitively expensive injections available in the market.

    6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we issue the following directions:

    a) The Chief Secretary of State of Maharashtra, shall identify on a top priority basis two plots of land, one beyond Dahisar and one beyond Thane. The aforesaid plots should be atleast of an area of 25 acres each, on a barren Government land, away from human settlement. The aforesaid two plots should be used for setting up of a large Dog Shelter Homes, one beyond Western Suburbs and another beyond Eastern Suburbs. The said Dog Shelter Homes should have proper dog homes, veterinary Doctors to take care of the dogs and to carry out sterlization programmes, in an organized and effective manner. The State of Maharashtra to take the assistance of Ayurvarta Prabodhini, who has filed Writ Petition No. 3069 of 2007 in designing such dog homes and also the Animal Welfare Organization, which has effecitvely set up such a dog shelter at Jaipur. The main objective of setting up of two such big dog shelters is to shift a substantial number of stray dogs from the City of Mumbai in a phased manner.

    b) Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai to immediately constitute a Monitoring Committee under Rule 4 of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. The said Committee shall be assisted by a member of Animal Welfare Board of India, especially with regard to proper implementation of sterlization programmes for stray dogs.

    c) Municipal Commissioner shall form six Sub-Committees for the City of Mumbai, including Greater Mumbai and dividing the entire area in 6 parts, to effectively implement the functions of the Committee as per Rule 5, which reads as under:—

    “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, sterlization, vaccination, treatment and release of sterlized vaccinated or treated dogs.

    b) authorize verterinary 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 dogs 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 wheter 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 method of sterlization, vaccination, etc.

    d) The aforesaid Sub-Committee in each area should provide a telephone number, wherein the citizens can immediately contact in case of a rabid dog, violent dog, dog bite or a great nuisance of stray dogs, so as to take up immediate remedial measures. Bombay Municipal Corporation should publicize the said telephone number in each area, through Television and Print media repeatedly, so that members of the public would come to know of the same.

    e) The Municipal Commissioner shall ensure that there are at least 5 dog-vans in each of the above six areas.

    f) The Municipal Commissioner shall ensure that through the aforesaid six Sub-Committees, sterlization of dogs programme is effectively implemented with a proper coordination, and Rule 8 of the aforesaid Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, be strictly implemented with regard to identification and recording of sterlized dogs.

    g) The Municipal Commissioner shall ensure proper removal of garbage in all areas, as garbage is the main source for stray dogs.

    h) Municipal Commissioner shall ensure strictly no feeding of stray dogs in public places including Beaches.

    7. All the aforesaid directives be also strictly implemented in the State of Goa, having two Committees, one for North Goa and one for South Goa and have a Sub-Committee for each of the Municipal Council, for effective implementation and for each of the Sub-Committee, the Chairman of the said Municipal Council shall be responsible for implementation of the aforesaid directives.

    8. State of Maharashtra, Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai and the State of Goa shall ensure that in case of dog bites, the victims are provided Anti-Rabies injection at Rs. 50/-.

    9. The Bombay Municipal Corporation shall forthwith execute the necessary agreement with the All India Animal Welfare Association, for providing Dog Shelter/Sterlization Centre, as prayed in Writ Petition No. 447 of 2007.

    10. Place the above matters on 22nd June, 2007 at 3.00 p.m, for further directions and for compliance of the above directives.

    11. Order accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    All India Animal Welfare Association & Ors. v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors.
    (Apr 20, 2007)