‘Why don't you feed them at your own home?': Supreme Court to Noida woman in dog-feeding dispute
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal moved by one Reema Shah challenging a March 3 order of the Allahabad High Court.
As soon as it took up the matter on Tuesday, the bench asked Shah's counsel, 'Should we leave every lane, every road open for these large-hearted people?'
Making its displeasure evident, the court added, 'There is all space for these animals, no space for humans.' It then asked, 'Why don't you (appellant) feed them in your own house? Nobody is stopping you.'
The counsel submitted that the appellant was subjected to harassment and was unable to feed community dogs, in accordance with animal birth control rules, which puts onus on resident welfare associations, apartment owner associations, and local body representatives to make necessary arrangements for the feeding of community animals residing in their premises or their areas.
This did not go down well with the bench, which said, 'We give you a suggestion to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house.'
The counsel then said the municipality was creating feeding places in Greater Noida but not in Noida.
When the counsel submitted that feeding spots could be set up in places not frequented by people, the bench asked him when he goes for cycling in the morning. It then added, 'Try doing it (cycle) and see what happens.'
As the counsel said, he goes on morning walks and sees several dogs, the bench said that 'morning walkers are also at risk' and 'cycle riders and two-wheelers are at greater risk'.
Shah had earlier approached the HC seeking directions to the Noida Authority and others not to harass her, other feeders as well as any other institution that feeds community dogs and animals, both in her society and outside it in Noida. She had also sought directions to implement the provisions of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, and cautioned, keeping in view the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Disposing of the petition, the HC had said, 'While protection of street dogs would be warranted in accordance with the provisions of the applicable statute, at the same time, the authorities will have to bear in mind the concern of the common man, such that their movement on streets are not hampered by attacks by these street dogs. A balanced approach would be needed such that not only the concern of prevention of animal cruelty is addressed, but at the same time, the interest of the common man is also protected.'
'We expect the authorities of the state to show due sensitivity to the concerns raised in the writ petition and to ensure that necessary steps are taken in public interest to protect the cause raised… and also the concern of the common man in moving on the streets,' it had added.
The court had stressed, 'This observation is necessary because there are many instances of attacks by street dogs on the common man of late, which have resulted in loss of lives and grave inconvenience to pedestrians.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court on stray dogs: Here's what you need to know
Media reports of some of the questions asked and observations made by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on July 15, 2025, have created a flutter. The bench was hearing a petition by a Noida resident, Reema Shah, against an order by the Allahabad High Court on March 3. She, according to media reports, had approached it seeking the issue of directions to the Noida Authority and others not to harass her, other feeders, as well as any other institution that fed community dogs and animals, both in her society and outside it in Noida. The petitioner, the counsel said, was subjected to harassment and was unable to feed community dogs in line with the Animal Birth Control Rules. Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (Popularly known as ABC Rules), which deals with the feeding of community animals, states, 'It shall be [the] responsibility of the Resident Welfare Association or Apartment Owner Association or Local Body's representative of that area to make necessary arrangement for feeding of community animals residing in the premises or that area involving the person residing in that area or premises as the case may be, who feeds those animals or intends to feed those animals and provides care to street animals as a compassionate gesture.' It also contains provisions seeking to safeguard the safety and well-being of human beings in the area in the context of feeding. Several judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts have upheld the validity of the ABC Rules. Feeding, commonly misunderstood as an act of kindness, also ensures that dogs are healthy and capable of undergoing sterilisation. The ABC Rules also mandate sterilisation, which, as experience in India and abroad shows, is the only way to stabilise the population of street dogs. Moreover, unlike dogs that are fed and vaccinated, hungry dogs, like a hungry creature of any species, are prone to turning violent. Hence, the petitioner, in this case, was asserting a statutory right as well as performing a constitutional duty. To prevent conflict, the petitioner had sought directions for identifying open, designated areas in Noida where community dogs could be fed without triggering disputes. These are referred to in the ABC Rules as 'feeding spots,' which are for the RWAs to designate. It was reported that the Supreme Court, while hearing her appeal, made certain remarks, including asking, 'Why don't you feed them in your own house? Nobody is stopping you.' The bench had also stated, 'We give you a suggestion to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house.' Earlier, similar remarks of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay were expunged by the Supreme Court. On November 16, 2022, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna (subsequently Chief Justice of India) and J K Maheshwari, had stayed a Bombay High Court order (Nagpur bench) banning public feeding of street dogs and directed the authorities not to take any coercive step against anyone in pursuance of the order passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court on October 21, 2022, Further, the Bench put in abeyance the High Court's observation that persons who fed street dogs must adopt them. Meanwhile, media coverage of the remarks of the Supreme Court in this instance has led to the belief that it is an order by the court. Significantly, the Bench did not issue any direction asking the appellant to feed stray dogs at home. Its order stated, 'Tag with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14763 of 2024 arising out of Diary No. 9352 of 2024.'. The point is that judges make many observations and ask many questions during hearings to get at the truth or at the heart of the issues involved in a litigation. It is also not uncommon for certain light-hearted exchanges to occur between the bench and counsel. It is also important to note that the honourable judges did not say anything about the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. The animal birth control programme, implemented under these guidelines, is the only humane and effective way to control the population of stray dogs. In its report, Technical Report Series 931, WHO's Expert Consultation on Rabies, which met in Geneva from October 5 to 8, 2004, states: 'Since the 1960s, ABC programmes coupled with rabies vaccination have been advocated as a method to control urban street male and female dog populations and ultimately human rabies in Asia.' The writer is a senior journalist
News18
6 hours ago
- News18
'Best Interest': SC Reverses Order On Child Custody After He Develops Stress In Mother's Absence
The Supreme Court reversed its earlier custody order and granted the child's custody to the mother, citing concerns over the child's psychological wellbeing. The Supreme Court reversed one of its previous orders wherein it granted the custody of a child to his biological father, and handed the child over to his mother, in a case of marital separation. This came as reports showed the child had developed anxiety and distress in the absence of his mother. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale considered a review petition by the mother, and stated that its review jurisdiction is limited and can only be invoked on grounds such as discovery of new and important evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. As the court granted the mother the custody of her child, the bench cited serious concerns over the child's psychological health following the earlier custody decision. 'There is no room for doubt that in matters of custody, the best interest of the child remains at the heart of judicial adjudication and a factor adversely impacting the child's welfare undeniably becomes a matter of such nature that has a direct bearing on the decision with the possibility to change it," the court observed. 'Therefore, in the wake of new facts as detailed above, the review petitions at hand are deemed worth entertaining under Article 137 of the Constitution of India and require indulgence of this court", it added. The petitioner-mother and respondent-father were married in 2011, and a son was born in 2012. The couple began living separately and entered into an agreement to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and agreed that the mother would have custody of the child, while the father would have visitation rights twice a month. A divorce decree was granted by the Family Court, Attingal, on June 26, 2015. The petitioner remarried and had a child from her second marriage. She lived in Thiruvananthapuram with her new husband and children. According to the respondent, he was unaware of the child's and petitioner's whereabouts from 2016 to 2019, and it was only when the petitioner contacted him in October 2019 to get signatures for the child's international travel that he learned of the remarriage and intent to relocate the child to Malaysia. Upon learning of the proposed relocation and change in the child's religion, the respondent approached the Family Court, seeking permanent custody. The petitioner filed a counterclaim seeking permission to take the child abroad. On October 31, 2022, the Family Court granted permanent custody and guardianship to the petitioner and allowed her to take the child abroad during holidays, while granting the father limited visitation rights. It found that the child had lived exclusively with the petitioner since he was 11 months old and viewed her as his primary caregiver. The psychological reports showed he found comfort in her presence and saw her new husband and younger sibling as part of his immediate family unit. The petitioner also alleged that after the judgment, the father made threatening comments to the child about separating him from his mother, worsening his psychological condition. Four subsequent psychological reports indicated continuing anxiety and distress caused by the fear of custody change. The Court noted that even though the respondent-father wished to reconnect, the child had not spent even a night with him and saw him as a stranger. It held that shifting custody would destabilise the child and cause further trauma. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Mint
10 hours ago
- Mint
‘All space for animals, no space for humans': Supreme Court asks petitioner to feed stray dogs ‘in your home'
During a hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court responded to a plea about alleged harassment for feeding community dogs in Noida by asking the petitioner, 'Why don't you feed them at your own home?' As reported by PTI, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta told the petitioner's counsel, 'We should leave every lane, every road open for these large-hearted people? There is all the space for these animals, no space for humans. Why don't you feed them in your own house? Nobody is stopping you.' The plea related to a March 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner, the counsel said, was subjected to harassment and was unable to feed community dogs in line with the Animal Birth Control Rules. Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 deals with the feeding of community animals and puts onus on the resident welfare association or apartment owner association or local body's representative of the local area to make necessary arrangements for the feeding of community animals residing in the premises or that area. The top court, however, said, 'We give you a suggestion to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house.' The petitioner's lawyer argued that they were following the regulations and noted that while the municipality was setting up designated feeding areas in Greater Noida, no such arrangements had been made in Noida. He suggested that feeding points could be established in locations that are not commonly used by the public. 'You go on cycling in the morning?' the bench asked, 'try doing it and see what happens'. When the counsel said he goes on morning walks and sees several dogs, the bench said, 'Morning walkers are also at risk. Cycle riders and two-wheelers are at greater risk.' The bench then tagged the plea with a separate pending plea on a similar issue. In the high court, the petitioner sought directions to the authorities to implement provisions of the rules with due care and caution keeping in view the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 'While protection of street dogs would be warranted in accordance with the provisions of the applicable statute, at the same time, the authorities will have to bear in mind the concern of common man, such that their movement on streets are not hampered by attacks by these street dogs,' the high court said. The high court, therefore, expected the state authorities to exhibit "due sensitivity" to the concerns of the petitioner and the common man on the streets. The High Court stated that its observations were important due to the recent rise in street dog attacks, which have caused fatalities and serious inconvenience to pedestrians. There is all the space for these animals, no space for humans. We give you a suggestion to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house. The court dismissed the plea while directing auSRthorities to address the concerns it raised. It emphasised the need to protect stray animals while also ensuring that public safety and the interests of pedestrians are not compromised.
