Meghalaya High Court Directs State To Form Committee Under Animal Birth Control Rules To Address Street Dogs' Menace

The Meghalaya High Court recently enlarged the scope of a PIL seeking directions for appropriate measures to control the menace caused by stray dogs in Shillong, to the State of Meghalaya.

The division bench of the Chief Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh further directed the State Government to take steps within four weeks to form a Committee in terms of rule 4 of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 promulgated under sub section (1) of section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The Court was hearing a PIL seeking orders directing the State to take appropriate measures to control the menace caused by stray dogs, to capture them, treat them which would include sterilising them and rehabilitating them in dog shelters.

The scope and effect of the orders of the Court in the said PIL had been confined to the Shillong district.

The petitioner-in-person pointed out that the order only covers the Shillong district. However, the dog menace covers the whole of Meghalaya.

“The Shillong Municipal Board did not have adequate facility to keep these stray animals. Under our order, the state provided shelter to accommodate these animals for a limited period. Now, it seems that the Shillong Municipal Board has been able to set up some kind of an animal shelter but it cannot house all stray dogs of the district. Pursuant to orders passed by this court, meetings were held between the Municipal authority and the state, as a result of which, the state has extended the accommodation of these dogs in its shelter. The Municipal Board says it is proceeding with the acquisition of land for the purpose of building a further permanent shelter after which the animals in the state shelter would be shifted to the Municipal Board accommodation,” the Court noted.

The petitioner further drew attention of the Court to the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 promulgated under sub section (1) of section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It was submitted that the said rules have remained a piece of paper and not enforced.

It was further submitted that rule 4 of the said Rules provides for formation of a committee comprising of the commissioner/chief of the local authority, who would be the ex-officio Chairman, representatives of Public Health Animal Welfare, District Society for the said Act, Animal Welfare Organisations and “Humanitarian or a well-known individual”.

It was submitted that this committee be formed forthwith and discharges its functions as mentioned in rule 5. It was also submitted that the Court's order should cover the whole state.

“In those circumstances, we observe and direct that the scope and ambit of this writ shall extend throughout Meghalaya. The commissioners of the districts and District Council shall be served copies of the writ petition along with the orders passed therein by the Advocate-on-Record for the state within a week from date. The state government shall take immediate steps not later than four weeks from date to form a Committee Page 3 of 4 in terms of rule 4 of the said rules. Thereafter, the committee shall discharge its functions according to rule 5,” the Court directed.

The Court further directed the commissioners along with the District Council and the local Municipal authority shall carry out the Court's orders in their districts

The State was also directed to file a comprehensive affidavit with regard to the action taken before the returnable date.

The matter is again listed on July 16.

Case Title: Kaustav Paul v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Case No.: PIL No.4/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order