Background and Case Overview
The Bombay High Court’s Division Bench comprising Justices Girish S. Kulkarni and Arif S. Doctor is hearing the Writ Petition that raised serious public health concerns connected to the concentration of pigeons at Mumbai’s traditional feeding sites, known as kabutarkhanas. These kabutarkhanas, some dating back nearly a century, are focal points for religious and community practices of mercy feeding, embedded particularly among bird feeders.
The petition highlights the health risks posed by pigeon droppings, linking them to severe respiratory and other diseases, and seeks regulatory intervention, including closure or strict oversight of such feeding stations to mitigate these risks.
The Bombay High Court issued an order dated 30 July 2025, declaring organized pigeon feeding in public spaces a public nuisance and health hazard. Following this order, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) undertook rigorous citywide enforcement by shutting down 51 kabutarkhanas, confiscating bird feed, and imposing fines on more than 100 people at the Dadar site alone. Some 2,000 pigeons were relocated with assistance from animal activists.
Order Dated 7th August, 2025
The Bombay High Court on 7th August 2025 called for the formation of an expert committee to assess the health implications of pigeon feeding in public spaces, particularly at “Kabutarkhanas”. The Division Bench comprising Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Arif S. Doctor was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the BMC’s decision to ban pigeon feeding at certain public locations.
The Court emphasized that the issue should not be treated as an adversarial one but as a matter concerning the broader societal interest, especially the health of vulnerable groups like children and the elderly. Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench observed that human health takes precedence over religious or sentimental practices.
The Court has clarified that while it did not itself order the physical closure of kabutarkhanas, it is “only concerned about public health” and has tasked the state to consider all views and set up an expert committee. This committee, to be established with the Advocate General’s presence, will examine scientific/medical evidence and propose practical, sustainable solutions balancing public health, animal welfare, and cultural traditions.
Since the BMC representatives were not present at the latest hearing dated 7 August, the ban on public feeding in affected areas remains in effect, with permission to the petitioners to apply to the Municipal Commissioner for regulated feeding arrangements subject to hearing and consideration of public health concerns.
The next hearing is scheduled on 13 August 2025, to consider the appointment of the expert committee and review all submissions.
The Animal Welfare Board of India and Its Involvement in the Case
The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) is a statutory body constituted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, with a mandate to advise the government on animal welfare and ensure humane treatment of animals and birds. In this case, the AWBI became involved at the Bombay High Court’s direction to submit a compliance affidavit presenting expert, scientifically grounded recommendations for the management of Mumbai’s urban pigeons. The Board’s involvement reflects the Court’s intention to seek a balanced solution that integrates public health concerns with animal welfare and cultural respect.
Suggestions Proposed in AWBI’s Affidavit
The AWBI’s affidavit, submitted on 5 August 2025, proposes a comprehensive urban wildlife management approach focused on regulating and controlling pigeon feeding rather than imposing blanket bans.
Recognizing the cultural importance of kabutarkhanas and the humanitarian motivations behind pigeon feeding, AWBI cautions that abrupt or total bans can be counterproductive, prompting pigeons to disperse uncontrolled into residential and commercial areas, thereby escalating health hazards.
AWBI’s input reflects a commitment to finding a scientifically grounded, compassionate, and culturally sensitive middle path. The affidavit’s key suggestions include:
- Regulated Feeding: Feeding should occur only at designated municipal supervised sites with controlled timing and feed quantity, prohibiting grain sales near these sites. Trained caretakers, equipped with personal protective equipment, should manage feed distribution and cleaning to minimize health risks.
- Artificial Nesting Facilities: AWBI recommends constructing dovecotes or ‘chabutras’ to centralize nesting, limit pigeon dispersion, control breeding, and simplify hygiene management. These artificial nesting sites can contain and reduce the pigeon population sustainably.
- Population Control: The Board advocates for humane population management methods, including veterinary-approved contraceptive feed and egg replacement with dummies, a practice successfully employed in cities like Barcelona and German urban centres.
- Public Awareness: The affidavit emphasizes ongoing awareness campaigns to discourage indiscriminate feeding and inform citizens about health risks, safe feeding practices, and complaint procedures. Instructional signage at feeding points is also suggested.
- Scientific Oversight and Adaptive Management: The Board calls for scientific oversight involving veterinarians, urban planners, public health officials, and animal welfare experts, recommending adaptive management and periodic review to ensure evolving efficacy.
The AWBI explicitly warns against abrupt, total bans as they are ineffective, inhumane, and likely to exacerbate public health problems by displacement and stress-induced pigeon dispersal. Instead, the Board advocates for a practical ‘co-existence’ paradigm that carefully balances human and avian needs through systematized, evidence-based, welfare-compliant policies.
Appearances:
Mr. Harish Pandya a/w Malhar Zatakia Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Mr. Dhruv Jain, Ms. Anushka Jain i/b Mr. Dhruv Jain for Petitioner in WPL/21199/2025.
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Prafulla Shah, Adv. Ms. Gunjan Shah and Mr. Yakshay Shah i/b SSB Legal & Advisory for Petitioners in WPL/21694/2025.
Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi i/b Harshad Garud for Petitioner in WP/10849/2025.
Mr. Ankit Lohia i/b Yasmin Bhansali & Co for Petitioner in WPL/24664/2025.
Mr. Surel Shah a/w Mr. Amrut Joshi, Mr. Yazad Udwadia i/b Mr. Sahil Sayyed For Respondent No. 9.
Mr. Ram Apte, Sr. Adv. a/w Ms. Rupali Adhate i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for BMC.
Mr. D. Pawar, Asst. Eng., Maintainance Dept. G/N.
Nr, Bhoir, Asst. Engineer SWM (G/N).
Mr. Vitthal Jadhav, Sr. Architect (Heritage) D.P. Dept.
Smt. P. H. Kantharia, GP. With Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for State.
Mr. Hiten Venegaonkar P. P. with Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, Addl. P.P. for State.
DCP Mahendra Pandit, Zone 5, Mumbai Present.
P. I. Meera Jagtap, Dadar Police Station, Mumbai, Present.
Ms. Savita Prabhune AGP for State in WP/10849/2025.
Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w Ms. Sweta Shah & Mr. Abhshek Roy for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 PMC in WP/10849/2025.
Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Sr. Adv. i/b Mr. Vishal Navale for Respondent No. 3 in WPL/21199/2025.
Mr. Ashutosh Mishra i/b A. A. Ansari for UOI, R. No. 4 in WPL/21199/2025.
Mr. Kunal R. Kumbhat a/w Mr. Karthik Pillai for R. No. 5 in WPL/21199/2025