Licence to Cull

The Bombay hisgh court ruled in a majority verdict that stray dogs that ‘create a nuisance’ can be culled. The high court heard a reference made by a judge in 2001 while sitting at the Goa bench, to decide whether stray dogs should be put to sleep or only sterilised. In 1994, the BMC stopped killing dogs and switched to sterilisation to curb their population. Justice S Radhakrishnan, who headed the bench, took a compassionate view towards ‘homeless and abandoned’ strays, and held that the discretionary powers of the civic chief can only be exercised if the dogs are rabid, mortally wounded or incurably ill—the three categories in which animals can be killed in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. But Justice Radhakrishnan expanded, with the assent of animal activists, the definition of ‘incurably ill’ to include ‘perenially violent dogs’, since these ‘pose danger to human beings’. He said dogs can’t be killed at discretion, as permitted under the BMC Act, merely because they cause a nuisance. Justices Dilip Bhosale and Vijaya Kapse Tahilramani, the other two judges on the bench, however, did not agree completely with Justice Radhakrishnan. In the majority judgment they signed, they held that the civic chiefs of Mumbai and municipalities in Maharashtra and Goa could use their discretionary powers to kill ‘dogs which are found or reported to be a source of public nuisance.’ The term ‘nuisance’ was dealt with at length by Justice Bhosale. He said in the canine context, it would mean “anything which endangers human life or is injurious to public health’’ Significantly, under the BMC Act, even an abandoned pet dog of any pedigree, if not claimed within three days of ‘creating nuisance’ can be put to sleep under the discretionary powers of the civic chief. The HC heard detailed arguments for days from animal rights activists—including In Defence of Animals, Welfare of Stray Dogs, and the Goa-based Norma Alvares—and the central, Maharashtra and Goa governments, as well as the BMC. It then came out with its 156-page judgment, which went against dog lovers’ arguments.When is a stray dog a nuisance? The Bombay high court in its landmark judgment on Friday, while upholding BMC chief’s discretionary power to put down stray dogs that cause ‘public nuisance,’ said no hard and fast rules can be laid down to decide if a dog was a nuisance. The judges said, “It is common knowledge that dogs have a habit of chasing running objects, including vehicles and humans, which result in very serious accidents. They will have to be treated as public nuisance endangering human life.’’ They also said continuous “barking at nights could or could not be called a permanent source of nuisance,’’ and the question is left to the discretion of the BMC. Justice Radhakrishnan: Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, a central Act meant for welfare of animals will prevail over municipal laws. Stray dogs, being homeless or abandoned, especially deserve compassion from society and killing strays merely because they are ownerless would amount to violation of every citizen’s constitutional duty to show compassion to living creatures. Justices Dilip Bhosale and VK Tahilramani: ‘All’ stray dogs cannot be killed but those causing nuisance may be. BMC Act Section 191 (BA): The rule says: ‘The civic chief can cause dogs—including both strays or unattended and unclaimed pets—to be “destroyed’’ three days after they are seized for creating nuisance in a building or neighbourhood.’ The BMC counsel said in an earlier time-bound judgement it had consented not to kill strays for five years, a time which is now over and hence the civic body should be allowed to exercise its powers. The BMC said it not bound by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Its counsel K K Singhvi emphasised that the civic administration had the powers and discretion to “destroy’’ a stray dog under section 191 (A) (B) of the BMC Act, if it creates “nuisance’’, is rabid or bites someone. The BMC Act essentially says that the BMC “may’’ kill a dog if it is causing nuisance and “shall’’ kill if it is rabid. This means killing is a must if it’s rabid and is optional otherwise. Singhvi stressed that Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty Act (PCA) exempts the BMC from the Act if the civic authorities “destroy the dog in a lethal chamber.’’ The BMC Act will prevail over the PCA, he had argued.Solicitor General Goolam Vahanvati, who appeared for the Centre, said the BMC law empowering the civic chief to decide on killing even a pet dog causing nuisance was in conflict with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Animal Birth Control (Dogs) rules in 2001, which would prevail and which stressed on a holistic scheme to reduce dog population by sterilisation.Nearly four lakh stray dogs were killed in a decade till 1994, but there was no reduction either in number of strays or dog bites (50 per year). Sterilisation has reduced not just the dog population but also rabies cases, some said. But People for Elimination of Stray Troubles, a Goa-based voluntary group argued that given the slow progress of sterilisation, killing strays should be allowed as an “effective and expeditious remedy’’ to bring down their “population.’’ BMC spent Rs 1.67 crore on killing of stray dogs between 1988-1993 4.5 lakh dogs were killed between ’83-93 On March 25, 1994, BMC stopped killing stray dogs and opted to sterilise them instead In 1998, Bombay High Court ruled BMC could only sterilise stray dogs and not kill them 100,483 dogs were sterilised by the BMC between 1998-2006 Mumbai had 26,900 pet dogs and 70182 strays according to a 2007 BMC census 50,000 people are bitten each year, says the state In 2008-09, BMC is expected to spend Rs 4 crore for sterilisation of stray dogs and Rs 6 crore for anti-rabies vaccines