Bombay High Court, February 13, 2023: The Bombay High Court addressed a contentious issue with far-reaching implications for private residential communities across India. The case, revolving around a residential community in Navi Mumbai, centres on whether residents have the right to restrict or allow the feeding of stray dogs within the estate’s premises. The legal debate has drawn significant attention, with Advocate Aditya Pratap, Advocate and Founder of Aditya Pratap Law Offices, playing a crucial role in advocating for the rights of the residents who oppose such activities.

The conflict within said residential community emerged when certain residents began feeding stray dogs within the private enclave, leading to tensions with other residents and the estate’s management. The management raised concerns about the unauthorized establishment of feeding stations and temporary structures on public land adjacent to the estate. These activities, they argued, were not only disruptive but also violated the estate’s internal regulations.

Supporters of the feeding practices argued that they were fulfilling a moral duty to care for the stray dogs and claimed that the estate should designate specific areas for this activity. In contrast, the management, backed by other residents, asserted that feeding should be confined to public spaces outside the estate’s boundaries, maintaining that the collective decisions of the community should be upheld.

When the matter reached the Bombay High Court, the central issue was the balance between the rights of residents to maintain a peaceful living environment and the broader societal obligation to care for stray animals. Advocate Aditya Pratap, representing the estate’s management, delivered a series of arguments emphasizing the importance of private property rights and the need to maintain order within a residential community.

The Court, recognizing the complexity of the situation, viewed the matter as one primarily concerning private law rather than public law. The bench, comprising of Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale, indicated that the dispute over feeding stray dogs within the estate should ideally be resolved within the framework of the estate’s internal regulations or through civil proceedings, rather than through a writ petition. The judges were careful to delineate the boundaries of the Court’s jurisdiction, particularly in matters that pertain to private governance and the internal affairs of a residential community.

The Court also acknowledged the importance of animal welfare, noting that the care of stray dogs is an important concern. However, they emphasized that the governance of a private residential community is fundamentally a private matter. The Court’s approach suggested that while animal welfare is a significant issue, it must be balanced against the rights of property owners and the collective decisions made by residential communities.

To further inform its decision, the Court sought the expertise of Mr. Abodh Aras, CEO of Welfare of Stray Dogs (WSD), asking him to visit the site and provide insights on how to balance the welfare of stray animals with the rights of the residents. Additionally, Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of WSD to explore whether a private entity can be legally obligated to accommodate stray animals within its precincts. This question is particularly significant, as it touches on the broader issue of whether private communities can be required to assume responsibilities that are traditionally associated with public or charitable organizations.

The implications of this case extend beyond the private residential community involved. The outcome could set a precedent for how private residential communities across India handle issues related to animal welfare. If the Court ultimately supports the arguments presented by Advocate Aditya Pratap, it could affirm the autonomy of private communities in managing their affairs, including the right to restrict activities like feeding stray dogs within their boundaries and that a provision ought to be made for the care and feeding of stray dogs outside the residential community’s precincts, on some land that can be earmarked by the public authority concerned. Such a ruling would reinforce the principle that private entities are not obligated to assume roles beyond their intended scope, especially when these roles involve managing public welfare issues like stray animal care.

However, if the Court finds that the said residential community must make accommodations for stray dogs, it could establish a legal precedent that private communities have certain responsibilities toward animal welfare, even within their private boundaries. This could lead to new legal challenges and require residential communities to navigate complex regulatory and ethical issues related to animal care.

The case is set for further hearing on February 20, 2023. As the legal proceedings continue, the Bombay High Court’s decision will be closely watched for its potential to influence how private residential communities across the country address similar issues. The arguments presented by Advocate Aditya Pratap will be central to the Court’s final ruling, which could have far-reaching consequences for the legal landscape surrounding property rights and animal welfare in India.