Back
High Court of Karnataka
VIKRAMAJIT SEN & B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
G. Master Jishnu & Others
Versus
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike rep. by its Commissioner & Others
W.P. Nos. 37197 of 2011 (LB-RES-PIL) C/W 7641, 7642 & 7644 of 2007 (LB-RES-PIL), 6229 & 4034 of 2007 (GM-RES-PIL) & 4920 & 427 of 2007 (LB-BMP-PIL)
Decided on: 07-12-2012
ANIMAL WELFARE - Stray Dogs - Menace - ABC Rules, 2001 - Validity - KMC Act, 1976 - Applicability - Interpretation - Directions.
Fact of the Case:
Numerous writ petitions were filed before the court, some seeking compensation for dog bite victims and implementation of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (ABC Rules, 2001), while others challenged the validity of Rule 7 of ABC Rules, 2001, and sought implementation of Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (MSW Rules, 2000).
Finding of the Court:
1. ABC Rules, 2001, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (1960 Act), permit the destruction of stray dogs in a humane manner. 2. Rule 7 of ABC Rules, 2001, dealing with capturing, sterilization, immunization, and release of dogs, does not require striking down, but sterilization and vaccination of stray dogs must be carried out regularly. 3. Stray dogs causing nuisance or menace, irrespective of whether they have mauled or bitten people, can be exterminated in a humane manner under the orders of the Commissioner of BBMP, as per the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act, 1976). 4. BBMP must take serious note of complaints regarding unruly stray dogs and act in accordance with the law and observations made by the court. 5. BBMP must ensure the enforcement of MSW Rules, 2000, to address the issue of garbage in Bangalore. 6. BBMP must frame guidelines for granting compensation to victims of stray dog attacks. 7. Owners of dogs must ensure their pets are not a menace or cause nuisance in public places and must keep them on a leash when in public areas. 8. Citizens must refrain from attacking stray dogs and ensure children do not go near them to play or feed them.
Issues: 1. Validity of Rule 7 of ABC Rules, 2001. 2. Applicability and interpretation of ABC Rules, 2001 and KMC Act, 1976, in the context of stray dog menace. 3. Humane treatment and culling of stray dogs. 4. Implementation of ABC Rules, 2001, and MSW Rules, 2000. 5. Compensation for victims of stray dog attacks.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court harmonized the provisions of the 1960 Act, ABC Rules, 2001, and KMC Act, 1976, emphasizing the need for a humane approach to stray dog management. 2. The court interpreted Rule 7 of ABC Rules, 2001, to allow for the extermination of stray dogs causing nuisance or menace, while ensuring compliance with the provisions of the 1960 Act and ABC Rules, 2001. 3. The court recognized the responsibility of BBMP in addressing the stray dog menace, including the establishment of a complaint cell, sterilization and vaccination programs, and enforcement of MSW Rules, 2000, to manage garbage effectively.
Final Decision: The court issued detailed directions to BBMP and other stakeholders, including: 1. Ensuring complete sterilization and vaccination of stray dogs. 2. Humane euthanasia of incurably ill or mortally wounded dogs. 3. Handling of furious or dumb rabid dogs as per ABC Rules, 2001. 4. Extermination of stray dogs causing nuisance or menace in a humane manner, under the orders of the Commissioner of BBMP. 5. Establishment of a complaint cell to address stray dog-related issues. 6. Enforcement of MSW Rules, 2000, to manage garbage effectively. 7. Framing guidelines for compensation to victims of stray dog attacks. 8. Ensuring responsible pet ownership and preventing pet dogs from causing nuisance in public places. 9. Encouraging citizens to refrain from attacking stray dogs and educating children about safe interactions with dogs.
Nagarathna, J.
1. It is said that a Dog is a man's best friend. But in these writ petitions we are confronted with the "menace of stray dogs" in the metropolis of Bangalore.
2. W.P.No.37197/2011 is filed by a minor boy, Jishnu, seeking compensation, being a victim of a dog bite. There are other reliefs sought against the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ("B.B.M.P.", for short) with regard to the stray dogs.
3. W.P.Nos.7641/2007, 7642/2007, 7644/2007 are public interest litigations, seeking implementation of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 and Animal Birth Control Programme ("ABC Rules, 2001" and "ABC Programme", for short).
4. W.P.No.6229/2007 is filed by an Animal Welfare Trust, seeking consideration of their representation dated 28/03/2007 by the respondents and also seeking directions for providing suitable accommodation to street dogs and to prevent their killing as they are being killed brutally.
5. W.P.No.4920/2007 is filed by a group of citizens, seeking prevention of the killing of dogs and to safeguard dogs, as per the ABC Rules, 2001. A concomitant prayer is also sought with regard to efficient disposal of garbage in and around Bangalore City, so that the management of solid waste would to some extent ameliorate the problem of street dogs.
6. W.P.No.427/2007 has assailed the validity of the Rule 7 of ABC Rules, 2001. A direction is also sought to the State Government as well as to B.B.M.P., to implement the provision of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter, referred to as the "MSW Rules, 2000).
7. W.P.No.4034/2007 is a suo motu proceeding initiated at the behest of the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, bringing to the notice of this Court the fact that a minor boy aged about four years was mauled to death by stray dogs on 01/03/2007. A request is made for directing the B.B.M.P. to perform their obligatory functions having regard to Section 58 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ("KMC Act, 1976", for the sake of brevity) and to provide security to the citizens by curbing the menace of stray dogs in public places.
8. Thus, in all these writ petitions, except in W.P.No.6229/2007, the contentions are directed towards the dog menace. In W.P.No.6229/2007 the prayer is for the protection of stray dogs.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel along with the other counsel for the respondents on several dates.
10. While, the learned counsel for the petitioners have highlighted various problems arising out of the increase in street or stray dogs in Bangalore Metropolis and one of the counsel has also gone to the extent of seeking culling of all street dogs, the others have sought for the eradication of the menace of stray dogs within the frame work of law.
11. Counsel for the respondents representing the Animal Welfare Board and the other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have stated that the provisions of law if enforced effectively would curb the menace of stray dogs in the city of Bangalore by referring to the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter, referred to as the "1960 Act", for short) as well as the ABC Rules, 2001.
12. At this stage itself, it would be necessary to note that Rule 7 of the ABC Rules, 2001 has also been assailed in certain writ petitions. The ABC Rules, 2001 have been framed by the Central Government pursuant to Section 38 of the 1960 Act. The object of the said Act is to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain on or suffering of animals and in that regard, to prevent cruelty to animals. Infact, the Central Government had constituted a Committee to rectify and remedy various provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1880 and replace it by a more comprehensive Act. Thereafter, the 1960 Act was enacted and has received the assent of the President on 28/06/1990. Certain amendments have been made in the year 1982 to the said Act. The relevant definition
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
