Pets must follow rules

MEGHNA UNIYAL

THE issue of dog attacks is nothing short of a public health and safety crisis in India today. While  stray dog attacks have reached epidemic levels, pet dog attacks are also occurring at a worrisome rate, revealing irresponsible and dangerously negligent owners. As the Supreme Court tackles the vexatious matter of stray dog attacks, it is equally important to address the growing menace of pet dog attacks.

The most important aspect is to understand the causes of dog aggression. If the reason was simply hunger, no pet dog would ever bite. But we know that even the most well-cared for, well-fed dogs can and do bite. Dogs are descended from wolves and display aggression for a variety of reasons – territoriality, diseases, predatory reflexes, lack of early socialization, individual temperament, sexual/litter aggression, lack of training, inbreeding, pack mentality, medical issues, etc.

A lack of awareness of relevant pet ownership laws and liabilities, mishandling of dog attack incidents and arbitrary orders by local authorities or the police and undue interference by animal rights NGOs and activists, have worsened the problem in India, leaving the public unsafe, and wrong doers emboldened. The usage of terms like “pet parents” and “furry babies” further obfuscates the problem of dog bite attacks.

A recent diktat of the Surat Municipal Corporation asking people to get permission from their neighbours to keep a pet, has predictably, annoyed pet owners. This also contradicts the Animal Welfare Board of India’s (AWBI) claim that keeping a pet is a ‘fundamental right’. Both propositions are equally absurd and do not find any basis in law.

Understanding and enforcing statutory provisions, laws and judgments is critical to addressing the problem of dog attacks, that can lead to life-long injuries, disabilities, trauma and can even be fatal. Across the world, pet dog attacks are prevented and dealt with by enforcing strict pet ownership laws, including criminal liability on pet owners for any injury/damage caused by their pet.

Globally, as well as in India, licensing and registration are the first important steps for pet ownership, mandated under every single State Municipal Act in the country. This is because anything owned by a person that may impact society, is regulated by the government – animals, arms, vehicles. That’s why you need a license for your pet, gun and car and not your sofa set.

Often confused as to why pet licensing is compulsory, pet owners mistake it to being penalized for keeping a pet. On the contrary, licensing and registration of pets helps build a sense of ownership and responsibility in pet owners, helps unite lost pets with owners, makes it possible to trace abandoned pets to their owners so that they can be penalized and to identify owners for liability and prosecution in case of pet dog attacks.

Relevant laws cover instances of irresponsible and dangerous acts by people involving or using animals, even if they don’t actually own them but are in possession of an animal for whatever reason. BNS Section 291 ‘Negligent Conduct with Respect to an Animal’ penalizes “Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such measures with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal...”

A 2025 Madras High Court judgment, in a dispute between neighbours over keeping pet dogs, has also laid down important legal principles with regard to dog ownership, public nuisance and Article 21 rights of citizens. The court stated that that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to live peacefully without noise pollution and hazardous conditions and that “Keeping animals detrimental to the interest of other residents cannot be a right of any person.” The court held that a private nuisance (typically affecting an individual or a group of specific people) can in fact be deemed a public nuisance (affecting public rights) in matters of animal ownership as it impacts society at large.

The court went on to state, “In a civilized society, everyone has a right to live peacefully without noise pollution and a health hazardous atmosphere, which has been recognized as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” And that “Noise pollution and emitting foul smell by keeping dogs in a residential area is no way a lesser hazardous condition than a factory creating noise pollution. Barking and howling of dogs and emitting foul smell in a residential area is undoubtedly a public nuisance.”

Pet owners are legally required to pick up after their pets as BNS provisions make it an offense if a person “unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life…” Not only is manual scavenging illegal in the country and no municipal worker can be asked to clean up faeces, dog excrement is highly toxic and pathogenic, creates unsanitary conditions in public places and significantly contributes to the burden of infectious diseases in the country.

Existing laws, court orders and statutory provisions with regard to pet ownership and/or animal possession, establish several legal principles — keeping a pet is not a right, local authorities can in fact put reasonable, common sense restrictions on pet ownership like a ban on dangerous breeds, prohibit the keeping of numerous dogs in an apartment and deny pets the same freedoms that citizens have in public places as well as in private premises. Treating a pet like a family member and giving it the same status as that of a child at home, is entirely the prerogative of pet owners. But society and law are neither required nor can be expected to do the same. 

Meghna Uniyal is Director, Humane Foundation for People and Animals