Why in news?

The Supreme Court, while hearing a case involving a Noida resident allegedly harassed for feeding stray dogs in common areas of her housing society, observed that those wishing to feed strays should consider doing so within their own homes.

The case highlights the ongoing legal debates surrounding the feeding of community dogs—a contentious issue that has led to repeated litigation involving constitutional rights, civic responsibilities, and the use of shared public spaces.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Stray Dog Feeding Dispute and Legal Context
• Legal Recognition of Community Dogs and Citizens’ Duties
• Feeding Community Dogs: Legal Guidelines and Responsibilities
• Conclusion

Stray Dog Feeding Dispute and Legal Context

• The case arose after a Noida woman alleged harassment by the president of her Residents’ Welfare Association (RWA) for feeding stray dogs.
• She claimed the RWA president broke pots placed for stray animals’ water, harassed her, and killed 10 sterilised dogs.
• Despite her complaints, local authorities failed to act and instead instructed her not to place the pots again.
• When she approached the Allahabad High Court, her petition was dismissed, citing the concerns of the “common man.”
• The court acknowledged that while the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 protect street dogs through sterilisation and vaccination, authorities must also ensure that public movement is not disrupted or endangered by stray dog activity.
  • ABC Rules was framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
  • The rules aim to strike a balance between animal welfare and public safety.
• Past Legal Precedents Uphold Feeding and ABC Guidelines
  • The Supreme Court had earlier stayed a controversial 2022 order by the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, which banned public feeding of dogs and had required feeders to adopt the animals.
  • The apex court put this order in abeyance, reinforcing the legal protection available for compassionate feeding under statutory and constitutional duties.

Legal Recognition of Community Dogs and Citizens’ Duties

• The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, replaced the earlier 2001 rules and introduced the term “community animals” instead of “stray dogs,” acknowledging that these dogs are territorial beings who belong to their local environment.
• The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution (Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja)—right to life and liberty—to include animal life, as seen in the 2014 Jallikattu case.
• Additionally, Article 51A(g) of the Constitution places a duty on citizens to show compassion towards living creatures.
• Consequently, the mere presence of dogs in residential areas is not unlawful, nor is feeding them a punishable act—unless it violates specific legal norms related to behaviour or space.

Feeding Community Dogs: Legal Guidelines and Responsibilities

• Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 outlines the legal framework for feeding community animals.
• It places the responsibility on Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs), Apartment Owner Associations, or local body representatives to facilitate feeding if a resident voluntarily cares for stray animals.
• The rule mandates that feeding areas be set up away from crowded spots like staircases, building entrances, and children’s play zones.
  • The rules aim to balance compassion with public safety by requiring that feeding areas be away from high-footfall zones and kept clean.
• These spaces must be kept clean, and feeding should occur at fixed times.
• To handle disputes, a resolution panel involving veterinary officers, police, local animal welfare bodies, and the RWA is prescribed.
• Overall, the rule affirms the right of community dogs to be fed while ensuring public safety and order in shared residential spaces.

Conclusion

Feeding community dogs is more than an act of kindness—it supports public health and animal welfare goals laid out in Indian law. The ABC Rules recognise the importance of designated feeding, sterilisation, and vaccination in managing dog populations safely and humanely.

The petitioner in this case was not only exercising her rights under these rules but also fulfilling a constitutional duty under Article 51A(g), which encourages compassion for all living beings.

However, there is a need to balance compassion with public safety. To achieve this, feeding areas must be located away from high-footfall zones and maintained in a clean condition.