Pigeon Feeding Litigation: Overview
Mumbai has about fifty-one kabutarkhanas, some of them nearly a century old, where feeding pigeons has been a daily practice tied to religious duty and charity for generations. In 2025 the civic body moved to close them, citing the health hazards associated with large congregations of pigeons — respiratory illness linked to droppings and feathers, soiling of public spaces and damage to buildings. Feeders and animal welfare groups went to court; residents and public health experts backed the restriction.
The litigation is a close cousin of the stray dog cases: a conflict between compassion towards animals, which the Constitution itself recognises as a fundamental duty, and the State's obligation to protect public health. What makes this dispute sharper is the religious dimension, since for many the feeding of birds is an act of faith. This page sets out what the courts actually ordered, on what reasoning, and what it means in practice — without taking a position on the underlying controversy.
What Was the Case About?
From around 3 July 2025 the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation began closing kabutarkhanas, following a State Government direction, and covered the well-known Dadar site with sheets. Three petitioners, described in reports as animal lovers and activists, challenged the action before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the demolition and closure were without proper legal authority and violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The High Court restrained the Corporation from demolishing heritage kabutarkhanas but declined interim relief permitting feeding, holding that human health had to prevail over the menace created by pigeon congregations. On 30 July 2025, recording that feeding continued and that officials were being obstructed, it permitted designated officers to lodge prosecutions for public nuisance and negligent or malignant acts likely to spread infection. Protests followed, including a gathering at Dadar on 6 August 2025 where the covering was torn off. The Supreme Court declined to intervene on 11 August 2025.
The Main Legal Questions
The questions running through the case are: whether a civic body can close long-standing feeding spots in the interest of public health; how the fundamental duty of compassion to living creatures and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act interact with municipal powers over nuisance; whether religious practice can be regulated on public health grounds; and whether penal action against individual feeders is proportionate.
Key Points From the Orders
The following is a structured, plain-English summary of what the courts said. These are the courts' observations, reported here for information.
The Supreme Court Declined to Run a Parallel Case
On 11 August 2025 the Bench held that parallel indulgence by the Supreme Court was not proper while the High Court was seized of the matter, and left the petitioners free to apply there for modification of the orders.
Public Health Was Treated as the Predominant Concern
The High Court emphasised the safety and predominance of human health from the menace created by congregations of pigeons, and observed that where something affects the larger health of senior citizens and children it must be looked into, while calling for balance.
Prosecution Was Permitted, Not Demolition
The High Court restrained demolition of the old heritage kabutarkhanas, while permitting designated municipal officers to prosecute persons who continued feeding congregations of pigeons, using the public nuisance and infection-related provisions of the criminal law.
An Expert Committee to Decide the Long-Term Question
The High Court clarified that it had not ordered closure of the kabutarkhanas but had declined to stay the Corporation's decision, and indicated that a committee of experts could examine whether the old feeding spots should continue and under what regulation.
Relevant Legal Framework
Feeding disputes sit at the intersection of municipal law, criminal law on nuisance, animal welfare law and constitutional duties.
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — Public Nuisance and Infection | Sections dealing with public nuisance and with negligent or malignant acts likely to spread infection dangerous to life were the provisions under which the High Court permitted designated municipal officers to prosecute persons continuing to feed pigeon congregations. |
|---|---|
| Municipal Law — MMC Act and Equivalents | Municipal corporations have statutory powers to abate nuisance, regulate the use of public places and take steps for public health, which is the source of the Corporation's closure decision and its enforcement machinery. |
| Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 | Prohibits cruelty to animals and was relied on by the petitioners. The Act protects animals from cruelty but does not create a right to feed birds in any public place of one's choosing, which is what the dispute turned on. |
| Constitution — Article 51A(g) and Article 21 | The fundamental duty of compassion for living creatures on one side, and the right to life including the right to a healthy environment on the other. Courts balance the two rather than treating either as absolute. |
| Articles 25 and 26 — Freedom of Religion | Religious freedom is subject to public order, morality and health. Where a practice is asserted as religious, the State may still regulate it on public health grounds, subject to proportionality. |
| Heritage and Planning Rules | Several kabutarkhanas are old structures with heritage significance, which is why the High Court protected them from demolition even while restricting the activity carried on at them. |
Timeline of the Dispute
Closure Drive Begins
Following a State Government direction, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation moves to shut kabutarkhanas across the city and covers the Dadar site, prompting petitions by feeders and animal welfare activists.
High Court Balances the Interests
The High Court restrains demolition of heritage kabutarkhanas but refuses interim relief permitting feeding, treating human health as the predominant concern.
Prosecutions Permitted
Recording that feeding continued and that civic officials were being obstructed, the Court permits designated officers to lodge prosecutions against those feeding congregations of pigeons.
Protest at Dadar
A large gathering removes the covering at the Dadar kabutarkhana, leading to clashes with the police; the Corporation re-covers the site and increases security.
High Court Clarifies
The Court states that it had not ordered closure of the kabutarkhanas but had only declined to stay the Corporation's decision, says human life is of paramount importance, and calls for balance.
Supreme Court Declines to Interfere
Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi dismiss the plea, holding parallel indulgence improper and leaving the petitioners to seek modification before the High Court.
Expert Committee and Limited Windows
A Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Arif Doctor indicates an expert committee should study the issue, while the Corporation proposes allowing feeding at Dadar for a limited morning window.
Partial Relaxation Reported
Reports indicate the authorities permitted feeding in a few parts of the city, while the wider question of regulated feeding remains before the High Court and the expert process.
What Does This Mean in Practice?
For People Who Feed Birds
Feeding at a closed or restricted site can attract prosecution for public nuisance, and vehicles and grain have been seized in reported cases. Where a designated window or location is permitted, use it and keep proof of the permission relied on.
For Residents and Housing Societies
Complaints about pigeon congregations, droppings and related health effects can be taken to the municipal ward office as a nuisance issue. Netting and building maintenance are usually the practical remedies inside a society.
For Municipal Bodies
Action must be backed by a documented decision, notice and the statutory nuisance machinery. Courts protected the heritage structures even while allowing enforcement against the activity, so demolition and regulation are different questions.
For Other Cities
These orders arise from Mumbai's facts, but the reasoning — public health prevailing over unregulated feeding, with heritage and welfare interests accommodated — is being cited elsewhere as similar disputes arise.
Guidance for Feeders and Animal Welfare Groups, and for Affected Residents
This dispute affects two very different groups — those who feed birds as a matter of faith or compassion, and residents who say their health is being harmed. What you should do next depends on which side you are on.
If You Feed Birds or Run a Welfare Group
- Check the current status in your city — whether feeding is prohibited, permitted at designated spots, or allowed in a time window — before feeding in a public place.
- Do not obstruct civic officials; obstruction featured in the reasoning that led to prosecutions being permitted.
- If you are prosecuted, obtain the complaint or FIR, check the exact provision invoked, and take legal advice on defence or quashing.
- Pursue change through the process rather than confrontation — representations to the corporation, participation in the expert committee process, and applications for modification before the High Court.
- Where cruelty or illegal removal of birds is alleged, document it with photographs and complain under the animal welfare law to the competent authority.
- Consider proposing regulated alternatives, such as enclosed feeding points with cleaning protocols, which courts have shown more willingness to consider.
If You Are a Resident or Society Affected by Pigeons
- Complain in writing to your municipal ward office, describing the location, scale of feeding, and the health and sanitation effects, and keep the complaint number.
- Support the complaint with photographs, medical records where family members have respiratory issues, and details of accumulation of droppings.
- Within a housing society, address it through the managing committee — netting of shafts and balconies, regular cleaning, and rules on feeding in common areas.
- If the ward office does not act, escalate to the corporation's health department and, if necessary, consider a writ petition on the nuisance.
- Avoid confrontation with feeders, and never harm the birds, since injuring them can attract action under the animal welfare law.
Does This Apply to Your Situation?
These orders concern Mumbai's kabutarkhanas, and the position elsewhere depends on your municipal body's own decisions and local rules. Whether you can feed, or can complain about feeding, turns on the current civic order in your area.
Follow the Case Record
Wherever possible, refer to the original court record for the exact orders rather than relying solely on editorial summaries — including this one.
📄 Visit Supreme Court of India WebsiteRelated Orders and Comparable Cases
These orders and related cases form the legal backdrop to feeding disputes. This is general legal information — always have a lawyer confirm how they apply to your facts.
Plea Against the Bombay High Court's Pigeon Feeding Orders
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi refused to interfere, observing that parallel indulgence by the Supreme Court was not proper, and permitted the petitioners to move the High Court for modification of its orders.
Order Permitting Prosecutions
Noting that feeding continued despite the Court's observation on health hazards, and that civic officials were being obstructed, the High Court permitted designated municipal officers to lodge prosecutions against persons feeding congregations of pigeons.
Clarification on Closure and the Expert Committee
The Court clarified that it had not itself ordered closure of the kabutarkhanas but had declined to stay the Corporation's decision, said human life is of paramount importance while calling for balance, and indicated that an expert committee could examine whether the old feeding spots should continue.
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja
The foundational judgment on animal welfare in India, reading constitutional protection into the treatment of animals and recognising the fundamental duty of compassion for living creatures under Article 51A(g).
Stray Dog Feeding and Community Animal Disputes
Courts have dealt with parallel conflicts over feeding community animals, developing the approach of regulating time, place and manner of feeding through designated spots and committees rather than imposing blanket prohibitions or permitting unregulated feeding.