VOSD Legal Advice

Know your and your animals’ rights: Sonia Rogers (petitioner) vs State of Haryana & Ors (respondents)

Posted on by VOSD Admin

Sonia Rogers (petitioner) vs State of Haryana & Ors (respondents)

Download High Court Judgement (5MB PDF): This is in context of individual(s) who tend to and feed stray dogs and are involved in spay/neuter and/or vaccination of strays; Sonia Rogers (petitioner) vs State of Haryana & Ors (respondents); CRM No M 13967 of 2010; in view of Section 289 IPC, Section 482 CrPC, & the Animal Birth Control Rules (Dogs) 2001 enacted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1960)

Sonia Rogers vs The State of Haryana; Haryana High Court Judgement

Responsible feeding of dogs in a locality should go hand in hand with spaying/neutering and vaccination too: Section 289, IPC is sometimes used by the residents/neighbors, Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs’) and the Police against people who feed dogs on the basis that if the dog is aggressive, and if you feed him, then its your dog and therefore you’re responsible under Section 289, IPC. The judgment points that if the feeder is participating voluntarily in spaying/neutering  and vaccinations they are volunteering under the ABC Rules and this is acceptable activity.

Case history:

  • Sonia Rogers, Gurgaon resident, undertakes voluntary activity of taking care of community dogs as per Animal Birth Control Rules (Dogs) Rules 2001.
  • She lives in a rented house and her landlord (an IAS officers wife) and residents of the colony wanted her to stop the activity of taking care of the dogs. Sonia Rogers however continued to pursue her activity.
  • The residents of the colony objected ot it and to protest made an unlawful entry into Sonia Rogers main gate on 12/10/2010, 2 maid-servants even gained entry into the house.
  • The police did not lodge an FIR on Sonia Rogers complaint on this unlawful entry, but several FIR’s were filed against Sonia Rogers by the landlord and resident welfare association.
  • The FIR in question (FIR No 58 dt 16/02/2010) was lodged against Sonia Rogers under Section 289 IPC for:

“Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

  • The court observed that Sonia Rogers was carrying out activity permitted by law: Animal Birth Control Rules (Dogs) 2001, Section 3, clause (3):

“The street dogs shall be sterilized and immunized by participation of animal welfare organizations, private individuals and the local authority”

  • The court deemed the action of the state and police unlawful and and quashed the FIR against Sonia Rogers

Important Downloads:

Legal References:

Conclusion: Section 289, IPC is sometime used by the Residents/neighbors, Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs’) and the Police against people who feed dogs on the basis that if the dog is aggressive, and if you feed him, then its your dog and therefore you’re responsible under Section 289, IPC. The Judgment points to that is the feeder is participating voluntarily in spaying/neutering  and vaccination they are volunteering under the ABC Rules and this is acceptable activity.

Tags : Animal Birth Control Rules (Dogs) 2001, Haryana high court, Section 289 IPC, Section 482 CrPC, sonia rogers

VOSD Admin