On Thursday (May 9), the Supreme Court disposed of a series of petitions regarding the stray dog issue, indicating that under the Animal Birth Control Rules of 2023, the matter can now be adjudicated by the respective High Courts.
“We are putting an end to this matter with the introduction of new legislation. Parties should now approach the Constitutional Courts…Authorities should act in accordance with the provisions of the 2023 rules,” stated the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol.
Previously, the Court had instructed counsels representing various states to examine these rules. The Court had suggested that if these rules offer a solution, then authorities should address the issues accordingly. Additionally, if further grievances arise, parties may approach the relevant High Courts.
The Animal Birth Control Rules were initially notified in 2001 by the Centre but have now been updated in 2023. These rules are formulated under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The background of the matter includes five judgments from the Bombay, Kerala, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh High Courts that were under review by the Supreme Court. The Kerala High Court, in 2015, upheld the ABC Rules and mandated that Municipal Laws for dealing with stray dogs must adhere to these rules. Conversely, the Bombay, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh High Courts opined that local authorities have discretion to deal with stray dogs and are not bound by the ABC Rules.
During the recent hearing, the Court reiterated that permissible actions should align with the new rules, and any arising issues can be addressed by the High Courts.
“We are clarifying that actions taken should align with the new rules published by the Ministry under the Act. Any issues can be raised in the Constitutional Courts,” the bench stated orally.
The Court also emphasized that it was not declaring precedence for the 2023 Rules or any previous judgments.
“We are not establishing precedence; we are leaving it open. Let the Constitutional Courts interpret the central act, local act, and the rules in their own manner,” the bench noted.
