Supreme Court Directs Animal Welfare Board To Decide The Issue Of Feral Dogs In Wildlife And Protected Areas

The Supreme Court has directed the Animal Welfare Board of India to decide a representation filed by the Bombay Natural History Society on framing guidelines with respect to the management of feral, free-ranging and domestic dogs in wildlife and protected areas. The Division bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale was hearing the writ petition that sought the above direction. Besides, the petition also prayed to declare Rule 11 and Rule 3(ii) of Schedule II of the ABC Rules, 2023, unconstitutional. Rule 11 talks about Capturing or sterilisation or immunisation or release of street dogs. Rule 3(ii) of Schedule II allows the Local Animal Birth Control Monitoring Committee to “issue instructions for catching, transportation, sheltering, sterilization, vaccination, treatment and release of sterilized vaccinated or treated dogs.” Essentially, the petitioner's grievance was that there are guidelines by the Animal Welfare Board of India for stray dogs/animals; however, no such measures are available against free-ranging dogs. Due to this, they are becoming a danger to many other species, such as the Great Indian Bustard (an endangered species.) The Court refused to take cognizance of the matter at this stage. It was of the view that a representation should be made before the Animal Welfare Board. Accordingly, the Top Court directed the Board to consider the petitioner's representation in this regard while giving them a personal hearing. “We hence direct the Animal Welfare Board to go through the representation of the petitioner, give them a personal hearing and pass a speaking order therein within four weeks thereafter.” Senior Advocate Mr. Arvind Datar, appearing for the petitioner, successfully convinced the Bench not to dispose of the matter and keep it pending until the Board takes the decision. The Court agreed, considering that filing a fresh petition would entail unnecessary expenses. It may be noted that the petitioner, inter-alia, also prayed to limit the population of such feral, free-ranging, and domesticated dogs in protected areas. It was contended that the same could be done by undertaking measures such as sterilisation and immunisation in order to preserve the right to protect endangered species. “If capture and sterilisation is not practicable, removal or elimination of feral, free-ranging and domesticated dogs invading wildlife habitats and forests. Developing an effective complaint redressal mechanism against attacks and incidents against wildlife by such feral, free-ranging and domesticated dogs.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to read down relevant rules of the ABC Rules, 2023 so as to restrict its applicability to areas which are not categorised as protected areas in so far as it is in violation of article 14 as the category of dogs present in protected areas and addressed in this petition i.e, free-ranging dogs in wildlife and protected areas, are different from the categories of animals covered under rule 7 of the ABC Rules, 2023 and “street dogs” covered by Rule 11 of the ABC Rules, 2023. The Hon'ble Court may pass further or other orders as it may deem fit and necessary as per the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice. Upon submission of such draft guidelines within time framed by this Hon'ble Court under prayer (a) and upon finalisation of the same, issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of a mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, ordering and directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to issue and implement such guidelines in wildlife areas and protected forests and providing the Forest Department with the financial and other requisite resources to do so.," were some of the other reliefs sought for.

Supreme Court Directs Animal Welfare Board To Decide The Issue Of Feral Dogs In Wildlife And Protected Areas

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags