Rule 20 of ABC Rules, 2023 – Difficulties in implementation
The Rule 20 (Feeding of community animals) of ABC Rules is the most disputed, vague, bizarre Rule subjected to hot discussions by various organizations and interpreted differently by different Courts.
Following are some of the insights into the issues around the wordings of Rule 20.
1). Rule 20 deals with community animals, and hence let us see its definition in ABC Rules, 2023.
According to Sec.2(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, – ‘animal’ means any living creature other than a human being – (ABC Rules does not prescribe any definition)
The Rule 2(1)(j) of ABC Rules defines community animal as ‘any animal born in a Community for which no ownership has been claimed by any individual or an Organization, excluding wild animals as defined under the wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
If that is so, in addition to stray dogs, will this include cats, rats, mice, bird and others?
Please remember a recent incidence where an FIR has been filed against a person under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for killing a rat, – does this incidence points to the inclusion of rats under community animals?.
Are the Resident Welfare Association or Apartment Owner Association or Local Body’s representative of that area are responsible to make necessary arrangement for feeding them also.
2). Further, a Resident Welfare Association is a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, which takes care of the interests and welfare of a residential society or colony in a city.
The main objective of RWA in India is to work towards the common welfare of the residents.
If majority of residents (even more than 90% of them) expect their living area to be safe and clean, and few residents (sometimes an outsider) under the brand of ‘animal sympathizer’ try to impose restriction on public space or compromise on the safety and cleanliness of the area around their living, will it not be unreasonable to impose the will of the negligible minority on majority of residents – (in a democratic country, even simple majority of people representatives is enough to form the government).
3). There is big confusion on the term ‘Local body representative’ mentioned in the Rule 20, – whether it is a people representative or the local body official of the area (if so, from which wing of the local body – public health, engineering, town planning or revenue).
If the local body representative is also equally responsible like Residential Welfare Association for making arrangements for the feeding of stray animals, then why the Residential Welfare Associations alone are singled out for issues relating to the feeding matters of stray animals in the Courts.
4). The other issue is revolving around the term ‘community animals residing in the premises or that area’.
The term ‘animals residing in the premises’ itself is non-quantifiable and non-specific in terms of numbers, and the term ‘residing in the area’ is a bizarre one, and hence any vested-interest person can make false allegations of non-compliance (of ABC Rule 20) by the Residential Welfare Association with ulterior motives.
5). Since Rule 20 says feeding may be done ‘involving the person residing in that area’ (not residing in the premises), can an outsider be allowed to feed the animals only because he/she is having compassionate gesture towards the street animals?
There is no clarification in the Rule about whether it is the same person nominated by the Animal Welfare Committee as ‘Colony Care Taker’ by the Board to feed those animals in case of disputes.
Do we have any fool-proof method to screen that person for possible future dangers to the community living there?
Can that person maintain any records relating to the number of street dogs in the area, quantity of food being fed daily, source of food, cleanliness of the area etc.
Is it possible to identify such a person for each and every residential complex in the whole of City/State
If no such person could be found and RWA could not make necessary arrangements to feed the stray dogs, can it be presumed that RWA has committed an offence under the ABC Rules?
6). Rule 20(1)(i) mentions about identifying ‘feed spots’ keeping in mind the number of dog population and their respective territories, children play areas, entry and exit points, staircase or in an area which is likely to be least frequented by children and senior citizen.
Can we identify such a spot in Residential complexes in cosmopolitan cities where finding a few square feet of empty unused space (which cost in lakhs) is a herculean task, and even in gated communities many of the plots allocated for public purpose as per the layout plan have been illegitimately sold by the Real-estate people (with the connivance of Town Planning Officials of the Local Bodies)
Courts have said there should be designated places for the dogs to be fed and that these should be defined by local bodies, animal welfare board and local RWAs – Even if such places are found, who is going to monitor that this is being observed.
7). Rule 20(1)(ii) mentions about designating feeding time depending on the movement of children, senior citizens, sports which is likely to be least frequented by children and senior citizen.
Finding an ideal time least frequented, is an impossible task considering the timings of morning and evening walkers and the children’s tuition timings.
8). Rule 20(1)(iii) states designated feeder shall ensure that there is no littering at the feeding location or violation of guidelines framed by the Resident Welfare Association or Apartment Owner Association or that areas.
It is a common site that most stray dog feeders usually place the food in front of stray dogs and go away.
To make them responsible for cleaning that place after the dogs finished eating is not practical for all 365 days and could not be monitored properly.
Another issues is, will they clean up the defecation of stray dogs in and around the feeding area? If there are dog poops in that area, will they take up the responsibility for failure?
9). Further, if the stray dog feeding person do not clean the place and also leave the dog poop in and around the area, it is amounting to nuisance and is liable for punishment as per the following Laws.
(a). Sec.268 of Indian Penal Code, which states, ‘A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right’.
A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.
(b). It is also an offence under Sec.157(a) of Tamil Nadu Districts Municipalities Act, 1920, – which states ‘No person shall deposit the rubbish or filth, in any street or on the veranda of any building, or on any unoccupied ground alongside any street’
(c). It is also an offence as per As per Sec.3(25) & Sec.41(4) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, which states, ‘Any accumulation or deposit of refuse or other matter which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance’ – and also, ‘Nuisance’ includes any act, omission, place or thing which causes or is likely to cause injury, danger annoyance or offence to the sense of sight, smell or hearing or disturbance to rest or sleep or which is or may be dangerous to life or injurious to the health or property of the public or the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or persons who may have occasion to use any public right. – Nuisance is punishable under Sec.44 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act.
(d). Further, under Rule 4(6) and 4(7) of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, all resident welfare associations and gated communities with more than 5,000 sqm should ensure segregation of waste at source and handover recyclable material to authorized recycler and dispose of the biodegradable waste within the premises.
Since any failure will draw penalty to the concerned Residential Welfare Association, will the Colony Care Taker would be answerable for any failure in this regard?
10). The ABC Rule 20(2) mentions that if there is conflict between the Resident Welfare Association and the animal caregivers over identifying a ‘suitable feeding spot’, an ‘Animal Welfare Committee’ should be formed with representatives from Chief Veterinary Officer, Police, District Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animal or State Board, Recognized Animal Welfare Organisation conducting Animal Birth Control, Veterinary Officer of local authority, Resident Welfare Association and the Complainant.
Right now we are seeing (from mass media and newspapers) so many conflicts between the RWAs and Animal sympathizers (in most of the cases they are outsiders not living within the compound), but no ‘Animal Welfare Committee’ has been formed and functioning worth mentioning has solved the issue amicably.
A request to all –
Kindly feel free to comment and point out the mistakes, both legal and others, and add additional points (as I am only a public health person) so that we can put forward the practical difficulties faced by the residential welfare associations and gated communities in the implementation of the Rule 20 in total. – Thanks
Dr.K.Mathivanan
Rtd. Deputy Director of Health Services
Tamil Nadu
