Point of Law: If any association succeeds in intimidating a pet owner into ‘giving up’ or ‘abandoning’ a pet, it will actually have abetted violation of law and may well be aggravating the menace of ownerless animals on the street, that are not accustomed to living on the street and therefore get involved in and lead to accidents, injuries and deaths. Please also bear in mind that intimidation is an offence in law.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. This writ petition, in the nature of a public interest litigation, has been filed by a person aggrieved by the stand of the office bearers of the resident association of the apartment complex in which he resides. It is alleged that, by taking shelter under a clause in the bye-laws of the association that prohibits the residents from keeping pets of their choice in their individual apartments, the office bearers of the association have issued notices to him asking him to remove his pet from the premises. During the pendency of the writ petition, other persons impleaded themselves as the additional fourth to sixth respondents in the writ petition, faced with similar directives from the office bearers of their respective resident associations. The short issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether such stipulations in the bye-laws of resident associations or other agreements entered into by occupiers of residential apartments can withstand legal scrutiny under our laws?

2. The State Government has filed a statement indicating that it does not consider such stipulations justified and that denying permission to occupiers of residential apartments, to keep pets of their choice, while infringing their fundamental rights would also infringe the fundamental freedoms recognised in animals by the decision of the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Others, 2014 (7) SCC 547. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Animal Welfare Board of India, the stand taken is that the Board has been constituted in terms of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘PCA Act’] with the object of ensuring that unnecessary pain or suffering is not inflicted on animals. It is stated that the Board has from time to time issued advisories and circulars to government authorities and local authorities on various issues including the feeding of community dogs and the keeping of pet animals. Pointed reference is made to the guidelines dated 26.02.2015 issued for the benefit of Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners Associations.

3. We have heard Ms. Bhanu Thilak, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Additional Advocate General Sri. Ashok M. Cherian, assisted by the learned Government Pleader Sri. Shyam Prasanth, for the State Government, Sri. Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned counsel for the Animal Welfare Board of India, Ms. Sayujya, the learned counsel for the additional 4th to 6th respondents and Sri. Keertivas Giri, the learned amicus curiae. In his written submissions filed after the hearing, the learned amicus curiae emphasises the necessity for striking a balance between the rights enuring to a pet owner to keep a pet of his/her choice in his/her residential apartment and the rights of his/her neighbours to a life free of any nuisance. He suggests the imposition of conditions on the pet owners that would safeguard the interests of their neighbours and further points out that the legislative lacuna in the PCA Act and Rules in that regard can be addressed by the Central Government by framing Rules in terms of Section 38 of the PCA Act.

4. The trajectory of animal rights jurisprudence in India has sadly been a retrograde one. Over the years we have virtually moved from an eco-centric worldview where animals, like humans were seen as living beings containing a life force and therefore morally worthy, to an anthropocentric one where humans alone are seen as morally worthy and privileged to enjoy the bounties that nature has to offer. E. Szucs, R. Geers, T. Jezierski, E.N. Sossidou and D.M. Broom, in a paper on Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and Religious Faiths - Asian-Aust J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 25, No. 11 (November 2012) pp.1499-1506, observe that the religions of the east such as Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism have always believed in non-injury to living beings and a repeated, cyclic