Source: The Hindu

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment in the Animal Welfare Board of India & Anr v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles & Ors case, which has been a contentious 15-year-old issue. The case centered on whether municipal and local authorities can indiscriminately kill stray dogs to reduce the population and prevent rabies, or if they must follow the WHO-backed scientific approach of sterilization.

Legally, the matter was framed as a battle between state/municipal laws that authorize "culling" of stray dogs, and the central Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act and Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules that mandate sterilization instead of killing. This landmark judgment upholds the rights and welfare of stray dogs, setting an important precedent for animal protection in the country.

What is the Background and Court Observation on Animal Welfare Board of India & Anr v. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles & Ors?

• The case before the Supreme Court of India concerns the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the local/municipal laws of various states regarding the management of stray dogs and other animal laws that allowed the killing of stray dogs ("culling"), and the central Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act of 1960 and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules of 2001, which mandated that killing stray dogs is prohibited and the only recourse is sterilization.
• The matter originated from an appeal filed by the Animal Welfare Board of India challenging a judgment of the Bombay High Court on the applicability of the 1960 Act and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
• Over time, the Supreme Court had issued several orders in this case, including one in 2015 directing all municipal authorities to be guided by the 1960 Act and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001.
• Subsequently, several related appeals and special leave petitions were filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the judgments of various high courts on this issue.
• The Supreme Court observed that different High courts had taken divergent views, with some upholding the 2001 Rules and others granting discretionary powers to local authorities to kill stray dogs.
• In 2023, the Central Government notified the Annual Birth Control Rules, 2023, which introduced a new mechanism for preventing unnecessary pain and suffering of animals.
• Considering the evolving legal landscape, the Supreme Court decided to dispose of the pending appeals and petitions, while keeping the issues open for future adjudication.
• The court emphasized that there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and that the authorities must act in accordance with the prevailing legislation and the constitutional value of exhibiting compassion towards all living beings as enshrined in Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.

What was the Core Legal Conflict Underlying this Case, and How did the Supreme Court Resolve it?

• The Supreme Court's final judgment on this matter struck a compassionate and scientifically grounded tone.
  • The Court recognized that the new central Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules of 2023, notified under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act of 1960, now represent the governing law of the land.
  • These rules expressly prohibit the wanton killing of stray dogs by municipalities and mandate humane sterilization as the only permissible approach.
• While the so-called "dog haters" or "cynophobes" may attempt to challenge these new rules in the high courts, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that killing stray dogs is not an effective solution.
  • Expert bodies like the WHO have endorsed sterilization programs as the most effective and humane method of population control.
  • Even the Bombay Municipal Corporation's own past admissions have acknowledged the futility of killing strays, with no demonstrable impact on their numbers.
• It is hoped that the spirit of scientific temperament and humanism, as enshrined in the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A(h) of the Constitution, will guide the mindset of citizens on this issue.
  • We must move away from unscientific and barbaric methods like the killing of stray dogs, in favor of the proven, humane, and effective approach of sterilization.
  • After all, we domesticated these animals around 10,000 years ago, and we have a responsibility to treat them with compassion and uphold their welfare.

What are the Legal Provisions for Stray Dogs?

• Indian Constitution ,1950
  • According to the Indian Constitution, it is everyone’s responsibility to care for and preserve the country’s natural resources, such as its forests, lakes, rivers, and animals.
  • However, many of these provisions come in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Duties – which cannot be enforced unless there is statutory backing.
  • Article 48 A states that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
  • Article 51A(g) states it to be a duty of every citizen of India “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.”
  • Further, the State and Concurrent List have been assigned the following items about animal rights.
  • The States are given the authority to “preserve, maintain and improve stock and prevent animal diseases and enforce veterinary training and practice,” according to State List Item 14.
  • The Concurrent List contains legislation that both the Centre and the States may pass
    • “Prevention of animal cruelty,” which is mentioned in item 17.
    • “Protection of wild animals and birds” which is mentioned as item 17B.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is the official criminal code of India which covers all substantive aspects of criminal law.
  • Section 325 of the BNS provides for punishment of all acts of cruelty such as killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless of animals.
• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960:
  • This central law prohibits cruelty to animals, including stray dogs.
  • It mandates that the only permissible method for managing stray dog populations is through humane sterilization programs.
  • The objective of the Act is to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and to amend the laws relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals.
  • The Act defines "animal" as any living creature other than a human being.
• Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2001 and 2023:
  • The 2001 ABC Rules were notified under the PCA Act to provide guidelines for stray dog population management.
  • In 2023, updated ABC Rules were introduced, further strengthening the mandate for sterilization over killing of stray dogs.
• Wildlife Protection Act, 1972:
  • The act aims to safeguard all plants and animal species in the country to ensure environmental and ecological security.
  • The Act prohibits the hunting of endangered animals while providing for the establishment of wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, and zoos.
• Conflict with State/Municipal Laws:
  • Some state and local authorities had enacted laws or policies allowing the "culling" (killing) of stray dogs, in conflict with the central PCA Act.
  • This led to legal battles in various high courts with conflicting judgments.
• Supreme Court Intervention and Ruling:
  • In 2015, the Supreme Court took up the case at a pan-India level to resolve the conflict between central and local laws.
  • In its final judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of the central PCA Act and the 2023 ABC Rules, prohibiting the killing of stray dogs by municipalities.
  • The Court directed that any challenges to the new ABC Rules must be made through the relevant high courts.

Conclusion

In its landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has firmly upheld the supremacy of the central Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act of 1960 and the updated Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules of 2023 over conflicting state and municipal laws. The Court has prohibited the indiscriminate killing of stray dogs, emphasizing that humane sterilization is the only permissible approach based on scientific evidence and the constitutional principles of compassion and scientific temperament. While the "dog haters" may challenge these laws, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the governing legislation mandates a progressive, welfare-oriented solution that treats these animals with the dignity they deserve as domesticated companions. This ruling sets an important precedent for upholding animal rights and rejecting unscientific, cruel practices in India.