Feeding stray dogs: how law balances questions of compassion & public order
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta were hearing an appeal filed by a Noida resident who had been allegedly harassed for feeding stray dogs in the common areas of her housing society.
The strongly polarising issue of feeding community dogs has frequently led to litigation over the years. Courts have weighed in on questions of constitutional protections, local governance, and claims over shared civic spaces.
The president of the Residents' Welfare Association of the petitioner's society had allegedly broken some pots in which she had kept water for stray animals, harassed her, and killed 10 sterilised stray dogs. Local authorities had taken no action on her complaints, and had instead asked her to not place the pots again.
The woman had then approached Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed her petition in the interest of the 'common man'.
The court had said that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (ABC Rules) did warrant the protection of street dogs, but '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 ABC Rules, 2023, notified under The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, seek to control stray dog populations through sterilisation, and to curb the spread of rabies by vaccinating them. The Rules lay down protocols to ensure that the feeding of dogs respects both animal welfare and public safety.
The ABC Rules, which replaced the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001, use the expression 'community animals' instead of 'stray dogs' — recognising that these dogs are not ownerless intruders but territorial beings that inhabit and belong to their local environments.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutionally guaranteed right to life and liberty as extending to animals as well. In its verdict in the 2014 Jallikattu case, the top court held that animal life falls within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution (Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja).
Also, Article 51A(g) places a fundamental duty on citizens 'to have compassion for living creatures'. All this means that the presence of dogs in residential areas cannot automatically be considered unlawful. Nor can those who feed them be considered offenders unless their actions violate specific behavioural and spatial guidelines set by the law.
Rule 20 of the ABC Rules, 2023 ('Feeding of Community Animals') states that 'it shall be responsibility of the Resident Welfare Association or Apartment Owner Association or Local Body's representative… to make necessary arrangement for feeding of community animals' if someone living in that area 'feeds or provides care to street animals as a compassionate gesture'.
The Rule states that the feeding locations must be away from high-footfall areas like staircases, building entrances, and children's play areas. The designated spaces must be kept clean and litter-free, and community dogs should be fed at an appointed time.
The Rule also lays down a dispute resolution mechanism involving the chief veterinary officer, representatives of the police, the district Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, organisations conducting animal birth control, and the RWA.
The big picture is that dogs have a right to be fed, but this must be done in ways that minimise disruption to shared social spaces. The Rules try to strike a balance between compassion and public order.
In March 2023, the Bombay High Court in Sharmila Sankar & Ors v. Union of India ruled in favour of residents who had faced opposition from their housing societies for feeding dogs. The court said that RWAs and societies cannot restrict the feeding of community animals or threaten or penalise individuals who do so. The court affirmed that the ABC Rules have 'the force of law'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
MPs submit notices for removal of Justice Varma to LS Speaker, RS Chairman
Stepping up the heat on Justice Yashwant Varma, parliamentarians on Monday submitted notices to the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha for the removal of the Allahabad High Court judge from whose residence here burnt wads of currency notes were found. Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court following the controversy. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Degree Healthcare Project Management Public Policy Finance CXO MBA Data Analytics PGDM Data Science Data Science Artificial Intelligence healthcare MCA Design Thinking Operations Management Product Management Leadership Digital Marketing Others Management Technology Cybersecurity others Skills you'll gain: Data-Driven Decision-Making Strategic Leadership and Transformation Global Business Acumen Comprehensive Business Expertise Duration: 2 Years University of Western Australia UWA Global MBA Starts on Jun 28, 2024 Get Details A bipartisan delegation submitted a notice, bearing the signatures of 145 Lok Sabha members, for the removal of Justice Varma under Articles 124, 217 and 218 of the Constitution to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure Your Child's Future with Strong English Fluency Planet Spark Learn More Undo The signatories to the notice included Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, BJP leaders Ravi Shankar Prasad and Anurag Thakur, NCP-SP leader Supriya Sule, Congress leaders K C Venugopal and K Suresh, DMK leader T R Baalu, RSP member N K Premachandran and IUML member E T Mohammed Basheer among others. A similar notice was submitted to Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar. Sixty-three members of the Upper House signed the notice. Live Events "Sixty-three opposition MPs, including those from AAP and INDIA bloc parties, have given a notice to the Rajya Sabha Chairman for removal of Justice Varma," Congress member Syed Naseer Hussain said. Hussain said a notice has been given to Chairman Dhankhar for moving a motion to remove Varma. He said although Trinamool Congress ( TMC ) members were not present on Monday, they are on board on the issue and will submit their signatures later. A notice for the removal of a judge has to be signed by not less than 100 members in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. The motion can either be accepted or rejected by the Speaker or the Chairman. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when notices of a motion are submitted on the same day in both the Houses of Parliament, a committee to examine the charges levelled against the judge will be constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman. The Act states that no committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses. The committee comprising a senior judge of the Supreme Court, a sitting chief justice of a high court and a distinguished jurist will then probe the charges levelled against Justice Varma and will be asked to come out with a report in three months. The inquiry report will be tabled in Parliament, followed by a discussion in both Houses after which there will be voting on the motion for the removal of Justice Varma. Though Justice Varma has denied any wrongdoing, the inquiry panel has concluded that the judge and his family members had covert or active control over the storeroom where the cash was found, proving his misconduct serious enough to seek his removal.
News18
42 minutes ago
- News18
How Many Times Do We Need To Remind HCs What Constitutes Cheating, Asks SC
The SC bench said, "We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order." The Supreme Court recently expressed anguish by asking as to how many times do the High Courts need to be reminded of the constituents of the offence of cheating. The SC said that there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took a strong exception to an Allahabad High Court's order of March 7, which directed petitioner Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R Singh, who sought quashing of a First Information Report (FIR), to go for mediation and simultaneously also ordered him to hand over a demand draft of Rs 25,00,000 for the purpose of mediation to the original complainant. Holding that the plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality, the bench said, 'We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order." The court noted the High Court first directed the appellant to pay Rs 25,00,000 to the respondent No.4 and thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement. 'That's not what is expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR or any other criminal proceedings," the bench said. 'What is expected of the High Court is to look into the averments and the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other material on record, if any," the bench added. 'The High Court seems to have forgotten the well-settled principles as enunciated in the decision of this Court in the 'State of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal & Others" reported in 1992," the bench said. In its order, the court pointed out, it called upon the counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 to make it understand in what manner the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 'We also called upon the counsel to make us understand in what manner his client could be said to have been cheated so as to constitute the offence of cheating. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties," the bench said. The respondent No.4 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant – herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the respondent No.4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant, the bench asked. Having gone through the facts of the matter, the bench pointed out, the entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of 'Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2024). In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. The court noted, it appears that this very decision was relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. 'However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs 25,00,000 to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent," the bench said. 'We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise," the bench asked. The court emphasised the High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. 'Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016," the bench said. The court asked as to why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. The bench said it also enquired with the counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. 'It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law," the bench underscored. The court said it could have said many things but it refrained from observing anything further. 'If the respondent No.4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings," the court held. The court quashed the impugned FIR and clarified that it shall be open for the respondent No.4 to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for the recovery of the alleged amount due and payable to him. The First Information Report was registered on January 09 under Sections 60(b), 316(2) and 318(2) of B.N.S., 2023, with P.S. Hariparwat, District Agra. The petitioner submitted that he is a co-founder and production head of M/s Karma Media and Entertainment LLP, which is primarily engaged in production of motion picture. The respondent no.4 (informant) is running the business under the name and style of M/s Polaroid Media, which is engaged in the business of financing, coproduction and co-financing media projects. He claimed the informant has lodged the impugned FIR by dragging a civil dispute inter-se the parties into criminal case. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 21, 2025, 16:36 IST News india How Many Times Do We Need To Remind HCs What Constitutes Cheating, Asks SC 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.
News18
42 minutes ago
- News18
'False, Frivolous': SC Quashes FIR Against Wife, Daughter Of Late Major General In Land Deal
The court also imposed Rs 10 lakh as cost on the complainant for misusing the process of criminal law and entangling the appellants in the criminal case. The Supreme Court has on July 18, 2025 quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the wife and the daughter of a retired Major General in a 'totally false and concocted case" at the instance of an influential builder in a dispute related to selling of land in Ranga Reddy district. The court also imposed Rs 10 lakh as cost on the complainant for misusing the process of criminal law and entangling the appellants in the criminal case, which resulted into eight days custody of 70-year-old Mala Choudhary, a resident of New Delhi. 'We are convinced that this is a classic case of the complainant, who seems to be wielding some clout in the State of Telangana, misusing the process of police investigation so as to entangle the accused appellants who are residents of New Delhi, in a totally false and frivolous prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said. The court allowed the appeal against the Telangana High Court's order of April 28, 2023, which declined their plea for quashing the 2020 FIR, saying the approach of the High Court in casually disposing of the petition filed by the appellants, without addressing the merits of the matter was 'absolutely laconic and perfunctory". It also directed for providing police protection to the women whenever they would visit Telangana for management of their property. Appellants here were the wife and the daughter of Late Army personnel, Major General PSK Choudhary. The wife owned a plot measuring 500 sq yard in Ranga Reddy district. In 2020, the complainant approached the Late Army officer for selling the plot for Rs 7 crore. As he passed away, his wife in October, 2020 agreed to sell to it by an oral agreement, the complainant transferred Rs 4.05 crore in her bank account. The appellants claimed no further amount was paid but the complainant argued Rs 75 lakh were paid in cash to her in Delhi. Since the deal could not materialise, the complainant, who happened to be an agent of an influential builder/property dealer, i e, M/s Sandhya Constructions and Estates Pvt Ltd lodged an FIR at the Police Station Gachibowli, District Cyberabad on December 14, 2020. In the FIR, the complainant alleged that the appellants failed to register the plot, besides a farm house at Chhattarpur in Delhi. Advocate Vanshaja Shukla, appearing for the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the substratum of the allegations as levelled in the impugned FIR is absolutely false and fabricated. She said, the complainant represented an influential builder, which has tremendous clout in Telangana and used its influence to falsely implicate appellants in a criminal case when the facts as set out in the FIR disclosed a dispute which is purely civil in nature. She further pointed out that the complainant has already availed the remedy under civil law by filing a suit for specific performance before the competent civil court at Telangana. The counsel said, the pleadings in the suit and the FIR which emanated from the same transaction are in stark contradiction to each other. While the relief of specific performance sought in the suit is limited to a plot of land measuring 500 sq metres, in total contrast, the complainant, while filing the FIR, has attempted to exaggerate the dispute by covering in the oral agreement another property owned by the appellants, i.e., a farm house at Delhi, as well as an adjoining piece of land owned by another party, she said. Opposing the plea, the respondents counsel contended that the actions of the appellants were actuated with dishonest intent right from the inception of the dealings. They acted with deceit and induced the complainant into the transaction, without ever intending to keep their word. Their counsel alleged, in this fraudulent manner, they persuaded the complainant to part with the entire sale consideration and subsequently reneged on their promise to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Thus, they contended that the FIR disclosed the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences, and it was not a fit case warranting interference by this court under Article 136 of the Constitution. With regard to the offer by the appellants to return the money, the counsel said, if the said amount is paid with interest, then in such situation, the complainant may consider settling the entire dispute. Having considered the submissions and after going through the FIR and the pleadings of the suit for specific performance filed by the complainant, the bench said, clearly the complainant has manipulated and distorted the facts and has used its influence for getting the FIR registered against the appellants. On a bare reading of the FIR, the court noted, it is clear that a plain and simple dispute involving non-execution of a registered sale deed in terms of so-called oral agreement to sell has been given the cloak of a criminal case by misusing the criminal machinery. Not only this, appellant No. 1 being a 70 years' old lady and wife of a retired Army officer was arrested in connection with this false and frivolous FIR and had to remain in the custody for almost eight days, the bench said. 'We are of the firm opinion that even from the admitted allegations set out in the complaint, there was no justification for registering the FIR and rather the complainant should have been instructed to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the civil court," the bench opined. However, the court found, in gross disregard to all tenets of law, the FIR came to be registered for allegations which had no elements of any offence whatsoever what to talk of a cognizable offence. 'We feel that rather than awarding interest to the complainant, it is a fit case wherein the complainant should be penalised with exemplary cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature," the bench said. Coming back to the High Court's approach in the case, the court said, initially, it contemplated setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration. 'However, the facts as set out in the FIR and the chargesheet, compel us to interfere in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, in order to secure the ends of justice and to ensure that no further harassment and humiliation is caused to the appellants," the bench said. The court found the Single Judge of the High Court, in an absolutely cursory manner and by way of a cryptic order, proceeded to dispose of the petition without even touching the merits of the case. top videos View all 'We are also of the firm view that the High Court acted with absolute pedantic approach. The approach of the High Court in throwing out the quashing petition in such a cursory manner cannot be appreciated," the bench said. The court also directed that, as and when the appellants proceed to Hyderabad, Telangana in connection with the management of their properties, they should send a prior intimation by e-mail to the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police, who would ensure that appropriate security is provided to them. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Supreme Court of India view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 21, 2025, 16:33 IST News india 'False, Frivolous': SC Quashes FIR Against Wife, Daughter Of Late Major General In Land Deal 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.
