The Bombay High Court on Thursday clarified that it had not independently ordered the closure of Mumbai’s Kabootarkhanas (pigeon feeding zones), but was only adjudicating the legality of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) decision to do so.
A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor, while hearing pleas filed by animal rights activists and Trustees of the Dadar Kabootarkhana Trust, made it clear that it had merely refused to grant interim relief against BMC’s action.
“BMC is not before us today (August 7) to say that the decision taken in public interest to close down (Kabootarkhanas) and/or stop feeding the pigeons has in any manner been revoked or diluted. Thus, the ban imposed by the Municipal Corporation to feed pigeons in public spaces very much stands,” the court recorded.
The BMC had recently shut Kabootarkhanas across the city following a state government directive, citing serious health risks linked to pigeon droppings and feathers.
The court took note of recent protests and incidents of forceful reopening of the Dadar (West) Kabootarkhana, where grains were offered to pigeons in defiance of orders.
Addressing this, the bench observed, “We will not expect any citizen of this country to disrespect the court’s orders, the moment the court passes an order, there is a rule of law in this country If nobody has any respect for the court and the orders passed by it, please tell us. We will not take up matters. Or contrary to the court’s orders, you want to form opinions, please form them.”
During the hearing, the court reiterated the importance of striking a balance between compassion for animals and safeguarding public health. “It was BMC’s decision which was before the court. We did not pass any order (on our own). We only did not grant any interim relief (for feeding). This is about societal or public health which is most important. It is about thousands of people who reside near Kabootarkhanas and passerby. If something affects the public health of senior citizens and children, then it should be looked into. There has to be a balance,” Justice Kulkarni remarked orally.
The judge further stated, “We will leave it to the wisdom of the state government so far as withdrawing and for the BMC to take an appropriate view. Our parameters of adjudication are limited.”
In the meantime, the court ordered that all previous directions, including a freeze on any demolition of heritage Kabootarkhanas, would remain in effect until the next hearing on August 13.
While maintaining that human health is “paramount,” the bench also allowed petitioners to apply to the BMC if they wished to continue feeding pigeons. The civic body, in turn, was directed to consider such applications and consult all stakeholders before arriving at a decision, taking into account the “larger issue of public health.” The court also allowed petitioners to seek vacation of earlier orders.
The judges underscored the constitutional duty to balance compassion for animals with the need to foster scientific thinking. They noted: “What would stare at the citizens” is a balance of fundamental duties to develop scientific temper, humanism, spirit of enquiry and reform with the duties to improve natural environment, wildlife and compassion for living creatures. It added that it was the duty of the BMC and state government to protect the health of citizens and these authorities are “custodians” of the citizens’ rights.
The court cited expert opinions to support the BMC’s position. Medical inputs from Dr. Sujeet Rajan (Bombay Hospital) and Dr. Amita U Athavale (KEM Hospital) pointed to “irreversible damages” to human health due to pigeon congregations. Dr. Rajan specifically recommended “dismantling of pigeon-breeding areas at the earliest” and advised focusing on internal areas of housing societies.
Acknowledging its own limitations in technical matters, the court stated that it was “not an expert to examine” the health implications, and would await inputs from Advocate General Birendra Saraf regarding the formation of a committee to assess the BMC’s decision.
According to the bench, such a committee’s recommendations would help “balance the interest of the large population in the state of which Mumbai is an integral part.” If the expert body upholds BMC’s decision, “such opinion needs to prevail in the larger public health of the citizens” and “required to be respected,” the court said, making it clear that neither the BMC nor the state government should take a contrary stand.
The court also suggested exploring “workable mechanisms” to address the issue of pigeon feeding in consultation with organisations like the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), and petitioners. “In our opinion, this is the only way the impasse can be resolved,” the court stated.
