1. Supreme Court Observation (2025)
- Key Statement: Feeders "should consider feeding strays within their homes" to avoid public space conflicts.
- Context: Case involving a Noida woman harassed by RWA for feeding dogs in common areas.
- Legal Basis: Balances Article 51A(g) (compassion to animals) with Article 21 (public safety).
2. Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules : Key Provisions
| Rule | Provision |
|---|---|
| Rule 20 | RWAs/local bodies must designate feeding spots away from entrances, play areas, staircases. |
| Feeding Protocol | Fixed timings, cleanliness, and dispute resolution panels (vets + police + RWA). |
| Terminology Shift | "Stray dogs" → "Community animals" (acknowledges territorial belonging). |
| Conflict Resolution | Panels include animal welfare bodies, RWA, and local authorities. |
3. Legal Precedents & Constitutional Safeguards
- Nagpur HC Ban (2022): Banned public feeding; stayed by SC – upheld feeders' rights.
- Article 21 Expansion (Animal Welfare Board vs A. Nagaraja): Right to life includes animal welfare.
- Duty vs Right: Feeding is a constitutional duty under Article 51A(g), not mere charity.
4. Conflict Points & Governance Challenges
- RWA vs Feeders: RWAs cite hygiene/public safety; feeders invoke statutory rights (ABC Rules).
- Enforcement Gaps: Local authorities often side with RWAs, ignoring ABC Rules (e.g., Noida case).
- Public Health Angle: Sterilized/vaccinated dogs reduce rabies risk (ABC Rules’ core goal).
6. Way Forward & Best Practices
- Model Implementation:
- Designated Zones: RWAs to create feeding corners (e.g., Chennai’s corporation-led parks).
- Awareness: Integrate ABC Rules with Swachh Bharat Mission for hygiene-compliance.
- Legal Clarity: SC must clarify if "feed at home" is advisory (not overriding ABC Rule 20).