Recently, while addressing petitions concerning the matter of stray dogs, the Supreme Court directed legal representatives from different states to examine the Animal Birth Control Rules of 2023.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that if the rules established in 2023 prove effective in resolving the issue, authorities can be instructed to address related matters accordingly. In the event of any additional grievances, the parties are encouraged to seek recourse through the respective High Courts, as suggested by the Supreme Court.

The Bench, led by Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, explicitly stated their willingness to adjudicate the current issue, asserting that they were not avoiding it in any way.

The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules were originally established by the Central Government in 2001 and have now been updated with the introduction of the ABC Rules of 2023. These regulations are formulated under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing five challenged judgments from the High Courts of Bombay, Kerala, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh. Among these, the Kerala High Court's decision in 2015 stands out, as it upheld the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and stipulated that municipal laws regarding the euthanization of stray dogs must align with the provisions outlined in the ABC rules.

While the Kerala High Court maintained that municipal authorities should not have unrestricted discretionary powers to euthanize stray dogs, the High Courts of Bombay, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh took a different stance. They ruled that local authorities possess discretionary powers to handle the issue of stray dogs and are not bound by the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.

The Animal Welfare Board has contested the judgment of the Bombay High Court by filing an appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner argues that municipal laws, including the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act of 1888, grant local commissioners in cities unchecked authority to euthanize stray dogs if they deem them to be a nuisance.

During today's proceedings, Justice Maheshwari remarked on the disparity in the judgments passed by various high courts.

At this point, one of the counsels highlighted the provisions of the Animal Birth Control Rules of 2023. Responding to this, Justice Karol inquired about the implications for the ongoing matter in light of these central regulations.

Justice Maheshwari emphasized that the core issue revolves around whether, considering the 2023 rules, the challenges presented in individual cases can be effectively addressed. Additionally, he proposed that in instances of conflict between the provisions of the Act and the 2023 rules, the High Court would be tasked with interpreting the extent to which these rules should be applied.

Following this discussion, the Bench instructed the parties to thoroughly examine the Animal Birth Control Rules. The Court suggested that many issues might find resolution through these rules, and any remaining matters could then be addressed by the respective High Courts.

Subsequently, Advocate-On-Record Manisha T. Karia, representing the Animal Welfare Board, informed the Bench about a recent advisory issued by the Board regarding the implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules. She suggested that if the parties adhere to this advisory, approximately 90% of the issues could be resolved. 

Accordingly, the Bench postponed further proceedings on the matter to May 8, 2024. Additionally, the Bench clarified that if any issue requiring interpretation arises in an appropriate case, it can be brought before the Supreme Court for consideration.

It's worth noting that on a previous occasion, the Court instructed the parties to compile pertinent issues regarding relevant laws and rules, along with the perspectives taken by different High Courts, as well as to develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

Prior to this, (on September 21, 2023), the Court had orally remarked that it did not intend to issue any interim directions and wanted to hear the matter on merits and issue concrete guidelines.

Case Title: Animal Welfare Board of India V. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles, C.A. No. 5988/2019