Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
J.R. Midha, J.
Maya D. Chablani - Appellant
Versus
Radha Mittal - Respondent
I.A. No. 4164 of 2021 in CS(OS) 277 of 2020
Decided On : 24-06-2021
Important Points
Subject
Animal Welfare - Stray Dog Management
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.21, Art.226, Art.243-w, Art.246, Art.48, Art.48-a, Art.51-a, Sch.12
DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT: S.399
DELHI POLICE ACT: S.73, S.74, S.75, S.76, S.77, S.78, S.79, S.99
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.428, S.429
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS DOG BREEDING AND MARKETING RULES: R.3, R.8
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT: S.11, S.12, S.17, S.3, S.4
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from feeding stray dogs near the plaintiff’s property. The parties reached an amicable resolution where defendant agreed to feed the dogs away from the property. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the importance of community dogs and mandated the establishment of designated feeding areas to avoid conflict with residents. (Paras 124-130)
Issues: The primary issues were the rights and safety of stray dogs versus residents' concerns over feeding practices. (Paras 6-10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court stated citizens have a fundamental duty to show compassion to living creatures, including providing care for community dogs while ensuring that such acts do not disturb others. (Paras 51-52)
Result: The court issued guidelines for feeding stray dogs and emphasized the need for cooperation between animal caregivers, residents, and local authorities.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute resolution regarding stray dogs. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. compassion and ethical treatment of animals emphasized. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal framework supporting animal welfare. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. guidelines for managing stray dogs established. (Para 17 , 25 , 33 , 37 , 44) |
| 5. rights of animals under the constitution enforced. (Para 72 , 99 , 100) |
| 6. implementation committee formed for proper compliance. (Para 146 , 150 , 152 , 156 , 157) |
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 4164/2021 to restrain defendant No.1 from feeding the stray dogs near the entrance/exit of the suit property. However, the dispute between the parties relating to the feeding of the stray dogs has been amicably resolved with the assistance of Mr. Pragyan Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel for Animal Welfare Board of India. The settlement between the parties on this issue has been recorded in the order dated 05th May, 2021, according to which, defendant No.1 agreed to feed the stray dogs at point A at fixed times. Relevant portion of the order dated 05th May, 2021 is reproduced hereunder:
"I.A. No. 4164/2021
4. Learned counsels for both the parties submit that the parties have resolved their differences with respect to prayer (b) with the assistance of Mr. Pragyan Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel for the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). It is submitted that the parties have agreed to the following terms:
i. The plaintiff is aggrieved with the feeding of stray dogs by defendant No.1 inside the subject property No. A-l/136, Ground Floor, Inderpuri, New Delhi.
ii. Defendant No.1 disputes that she has fed the stray dogs inside the subject property. It is submitted that defendant No.1 feeds the stray dogs at a distance from the subject property. However, defendant No.1 agrees not to feed any stray dogs inside the subject property bearing No. A-l/136, Inderpuri, New Delhi.
iii. Defendant No.1 agrees to feed the stray dogs at point =A` marked on the Site Plan handed over by learned counsels for both the parties. Defendant No.1 further agrees to feed the stray dogs at point =A` in the morning from 06:00 AM to 08:00 AM and in the evening between 07:00 PM to 10:00 PM.
iv. The plaintiff is agreeable to above terms and has no objection to defendant No.1 feeding the stray dogs at point =A` marked on the site plan.
5. The settlement between the parties is lawful and is recorded."
2. Mr. Pragyan Sharma, learned amicus curiae, Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel for Animal Welfare Board of India, Ms. Nandita Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel for GNCTD and learned counsels for both the parties urged before this Court to lay down the guidelines with respect to feeding of stray dogs.
3. Mr. Pragyan Sharma, learned amicus curiae has done extensive research on the subject and has filed very comprehensive written submissions before this Court. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel for Animal Welfare Board of India and Ms. Nandita Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel for GNCTD have also filed written submissions. The written submissions filed by the learned counsels have been considered by this Court.
Submissions of Mr. Pragyan Sharma, Advocate as Amicus Curiae
4. Feeding of animals has from times immemorial been considered as a good deed in all religions. Feeding animals including dogs find mention in the Vedas and Purans and was considered as a resource to absolve the sins of a person. Dogs have been referred to as `Shvan` in many Vedic verses and have a deep meaning in Hindu mythology'
5. Dogs are the most protective and loyal species in the world and they live within their own packs and territory. Dogs are considered to be immensely intelligent beings. The survival instincts of dogs are supreme. Their loyalty towards the humans is also due to the awareness that they depend on humans for protection. The dogs with proper training can be hunte
