Bombay High Court Rules: Stopping Stray Dog Feeding in Non-Designated Areas Not Wrongful Restraint
Court clarifies scope of “wrongful restraint” under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Ruling balances animal welfare with child safety and public order
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: December 29, 2025:
In a landmark judgment delivered on December 18, 2025, the Bombay High Court clarified that preventing a person from feeding stray dogs in non-designated areas does not constitute wrongful restraint under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The case arose from an FIR filed against a Pune resident who allegedly stopped a woman and her friends from feeding stray dogs at the gate of a housing society and near a school bus stop. The Court, comprising Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Sandesh D. Patil, quashed the FIR, calling it an abuse of process of law.
Background of the Case
- Incident: A woman and her friends attempted to feed stray dogs at the entry and exit gates of a residential society in Hinjewadi, Pune, and near a school bus stop.
- Objection: A resident, Ayyappa Swami, objected and allegedly stood in front of her car, preventing her from leaving.
- FIR: Pune Police registered an FIR under Sections 126 (wrongful restraint) and other provisions of the BNS.
- Petition: Swami approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
- Court’s ruling: The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that stopping feeding in non-designated areas cannot be termed wrongful restraint.
Court’s Observations
The Court made several important observations:
- Scope of wrongful restraint: Wrongful restraint under Section 126 BNS requires unlawful obstruction of a person’s right to move freely. Preventing feeding in non-designated areas does not meet this threshold.
- Public safety: Feeding stray dogs at society gates and school bus stops poses risks to children and residents.
- Designated feeding areas: The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, and municipal guidelines require feeding to be done in designated spots to balance animal welfare and public safety.
- Abuse of law: The FIR was filed four months after the alleged incident, which the Court termed an abuse of process.
Legal Context
- Section 126, BNS (2023): Defines wrongful restraint as obstructing a person from moving lawfully in any direction.
- Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023: Provide guidelines for feeding and managing stray dogs.
- Supreme Court directions: Earlier rulings emphasized designated feeding spots to avoid conflicts between animal lovers and residents.
- Judicial precedent: Courts have consistently balanced animal welfare with public safety in stray dog-related disputes.
Case Title and Bench
- Case Title: Ayyappa Swami v. State of Maharashtra
- Court: Bombay High Court
- Date: December 18, 2025 (order made available December 22, 2025)
- Bench: Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Sandesh D. Patil
Impact of the Ruling
The ruling has significant implications:
- For residents: Provides clarity that objections to feeding in unsafe areas are not criminal acts.
- For animal lovers: Reinforces the need to follow designated feeding guidelines.
- For judiciary: Clarifies interpretation of wrongful restraint under BNS.
- For governance: Encourages municipalities to enforce designated feeding zones.
Expert Opinions
- Legal scholars argue that the ruling prevents misuse of criminal law in neighbourhood disputes.
- Animal welfare activists stress the importance of designated feeding areas to avoid conflict.
- Policy analysts note that the judgment balances compassion for animals with safety concerns for children and residents.
Comparison with Other Cases
|
Case Title |
Court |
Key Ruling |
|
Ayyappa Swami v. State of Maharashtra |
Bombay HC |
Stopping feeding in non-designated areas not wrongful restraint |
|
Supreme Court Stray Dog Case (2023) |
Supreme Court |
Directed feeding only in designated areas |
|
Delhi HC Stray Dog Dispute (2024) |
Delhi HC |
Balanced animal welfare with resident safety |
Broader Implications
The ruling also has implications for:
- Urban governance: Municipalities must designate safe feeding zones.
- Community relations: Reduces conflict between animal lovers and residents.
- Public safety: Protects children and residents from stray dog-related risks.
- Animal welfare: Ensures feeding continues but in regulated, safe environments.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s ruling in Ayyappa Swami v. State of Maharashtra marks a critical clarification in criminal law and urban governance. By holding that stopping stray dog feeding in non-designated areas is not wrongful restraint, the Court has balanced animal welfare with public safety.
This judgment ensures that criminal law is not misused in neighbourhood disputes, while reinforcing the importance of designated feeding zones for stray dogs.
GEO Keywords for Faster Searches
- Bombay High Court stray dog feeding ruling
- Ayyappa Swami v State of Maharashtra case
- Wrongful restraint Section 126 BNS India
- Feeding stray dogs non-designated areas HC ruling
- Bombay HC quashes FIR stray dog feeding case
- Stray dog feeding guidelines ABC Rules 2023
- Bombay HC ruling December 2025 stray dog case
- Public safety vs animal welfare Bombay HC judgment
- Stray dog feeding society gate school bus stop case
- Bombay HC wrongful restraint clarification