Guest Column | Chandigarh’s new dog bylaws: Legal pitfalls & a path to coexistence

Chandigarh municipal corporation (MC) recently proposed the MC Pet and Community Dog Bylaws, 2023, aiming to address concerns like dog bites, public safety, and community dog management. While the draft contains a few laudable initiatives, several other provisions overlook legal requirements and community dynamics. If implemented without revision, the bylaws risk creating confusion and conflict rather than resolution. As a Chandigarh resident involved in animal welfare, I examine the provisions of the bylaws and attempt to offer practical alternatives that advance safety for both humans and animals.

The proposed bylaws introduce several sweeping changes. The number of dogs allowed per household now depends on its area, and Indie adoption is favoured. Pitbulls, rottweilers, and other “aggressive” breeds are banned for new ownership and breeding. Existing registered pets are exempt from this rule. Feeding community animals must now be done by registered community feeders, in areas designated by resident welfare associations (RWAs) or market welfare associations (MWAs). Feeding outside these zones is punishable under the penal code.

Responsible pet management

While some measures, like banning breeds used for dogfighting, are welcome, they do not go far enough. The sale of these breeds is not prohibited, which would allow breeders to circumvent this rule by renaming breeds. Also, a grace period is needed for owners of unregistered dogs. This would prevent mass abandonment of these breeds, increasing the population in the streets. Requiring pet owners to clean up waste in public areas is sensible, but fines alone would not work. A better approach would be to install “poop points” for easy disposal. Similarly, the corporation must establish cremation facilities for the disposal of deceased animals instead of simply penalising existing practices. However, beyond these practical shortcomings, the proposed bylaws face more fundamental legal challenges.

Legal contradictions, enforcement concerns and alternatives

Several provisions in the draft bylaws contradict established laws and guidelines. For instance, Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, require RWAs/MWAs to designate feeding spots for community animals in consultation with feeders. The bylaws currently exclude them, risking impractical feeding locations, territorial conflicts, and more dog bites. The bylaws also lack effective mediation mechanisms. Instead of forming animal welfare panels—as mandated by the Rules—all disputes must go directly to commissioner’s office. This centralisation risks delay and leave both complainants and defendants without recourse. Vague terms like ‘ferocious dogs’ and penalising feeding sites as ‘littering’ invite arbitrary enforcement. Moreover, the bylaws overlook due process by allowing seizure and impounding of unattended pets without giving owners a chance to explain their situation. The grounds for seizure include barking and howling, which goes against Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) guidelines and may be used to target otherwise responsible dog owners.

Beyond these legal issues, the bylaws also threaten privacy. Requiring pet owners to obtain consent from neighbours infringes on the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right. Similarly, penalising feeders for dog bites contradicts court rulings that hold the state—not individuals—responsible for community animals. In fact, the MC can rely on UT administration’s existing policy of compensating victims of bites by community animals.

It is also imperative to protect dogs and their caretakers from arbitrary harassment by RWA members. There is strong legal precedent including the PCA Act 1960, BNS 2023 statutes, Supreme Court orders and AWBI guidelines that may be used to remind citizens not to take the law into their own hands.

A way forward

Bylaws aimed at community animal management work best when integrated with effective ABC implementation. Chandigarh’s ABC programme can and must be strengthened. For instance, the MC can appoint experienced NGOs for neutering and vaccination programmes rather than relying solely on the SPCA. Cities like Mumbai and Jaipur demonstrate the programme’s success especially in reducing human-animal conflict.

The civic body is thereby urged to reconsider these bylaws that break with legal precedent, introduce arbitrariness, and possibly friction into the daily lives of its citizens. MC’s engagement with residents, experienced animal welfare organisations and RWAs would be a welcome step to create regulations that promote peaceful coexistence between humans and animals.

aw.nishaant@gmail.com

(The writer is a Chandigarh-based animal lover & volunteer. Views expressed are personal)