Read Time: 11 minutes

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declared that in any bye-law or agreement, clauses that absolutely prohibit persons from keeping a pet of their choice in their residential unit are to be treated as void and unenforceable in law.

A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a person aggrieved by notices sent to him by the officials of the Resident Association officials of the Apartment Complex where he lives. 

The office-bearers of the association had issued notices to him asking him to remove his pet from the premises. It was contended by the petitioner that by taking shelter under a clause in the bye-laws of the association, the office-bearers of the association had taken those steps against him. 

Scrutinizing as to whether such stipulations in the bye-laws of resident associations or other agreements entered into by occupiers of residential apartments can withstand legal scrutiny under law, the Kerala High Court bench held otherwise. 

The Court also clarified that this declaration shall be seen as one operating in rem (made against or affecting a thing, and therefore other people generally; imposing a general liability) and this judgment as one covered by Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 

The Court further directed the Resident Owners' Associations and Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) to desist from putting up notice boards and signposts prohibiting the keeping or entry of pets in their respective premises.

Further, delivering the judgment the bench commented, "We believe the time has indeed come to nudge our citizenry into respecting the claims of other living beings that too have rights in our shared ecosystem."

Therefore, the court also directed for a copy of this judgment to be sent to the Chief Secretary of the state who shall, in turn, take immediate steps to issue necessary instruction in this regard to the newly reconstituted State Animal Welfare Board, the administrative departments of the State, and to its law enforcement agencies.

The Court has directed so stating, "So that complaints brought to their notice by the citizenry, as regards infringement of the rights declared in this judgment receive immediate attention and resolution.

It added that it expects the State government to take note of the suggestions made in this judgment for the purposes of cultivating a healthy respect for animals among the people in the State.

Observations/Suggestions by the court:

Taking note of the suggestion made by the amicus curiae in the case, Advocate Keertivas Giri, that a balance has to be struck between the rights enuring to a pet owner to keep a pet of his/her choice in his/her residential apartment and the rights of his/her neighbours to a life free of any nuisance, the court traced back the trajectory of animal rights jurisprudence in India.

The Court said, "The vedas set out the code of ‘sarva-bhuta-hita’ that exhorts people to see the same life in all creatures regardless of their external manifestation. Those who cannot understand this principle of life in lesser beings miss the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity."

Referring to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the court said that however, the PCA Act carves out exceptions to the freedoms recognized in animals based on the doctrine of necessity, the necessity being the sub-serving of the needs of human beings.

The Court noted, 

"Even within the limits of animal welfare recognised under the PCA Act, we are of the view that the duty cast on the citizenry to respect the five freedoms recognised in animals is of sufficiently wide ambit as to require them to refrain from interfering with another persons right to keep a pet of his choice."

It explained that while interpreting the provisions of the PCA Act, the provisions of Article 48A of the Constitution that obliges the State to protect and make all endeavours to safeguard the forests and wildlife and Article 51A (g) of our Constitution that imposes a duty on every citizen of our country to protect and improve the natural environment and to have compassion for living creatures, must be kept in mind. 

Accordingly, it was held that "the clauses in bye-laws or agreements entered into with owners of residential apartments cannot have the effect of negating the fundamental rights of citizens of our country."

Therefore, the Court held such clauses that seek to prevent owners/occupiers of residential apartments from keeping pet animals of their choice in the residential apartments owned by them, or accessing the elevators and common facilities in the apartment buildings, as illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable.

The court also observed that the aforesaid freedoms recognized in animals, and the co-relational right recognized in pet owners, is by no means absolute or unconditional and must necessarily be qualified by safeguards designed to protect the competing rights of others including the owners/residents of neighboring apartments.

For that reason, the Court made it clear that short of effectively prohibiting the keeping and maintaining of pets in the residential apartments and appurtenant premises, the resident associations may stipulate reasonable conditions that must be adhered to by the owners/residents of individual apartments while keeping pets therein.

WIth the abovesaid observations and directions, the petition was disposed of. 

Cause Title: People For Animals v. State of Kerala & Ors.