The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Bombay High Court order that had flagged the health risks of feeding pigeons in Mumbai and directed criminal action against those violating civic directives.
The bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a plea filed by petitioners challenging the High Court’s decision, stating, “Parallel indulgence by this Court is not proper. The petitioner can move the High Court for modification of the order.”
The matter originated from multiple petitions filed by animal lovers and rights activists opposing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) demolition of decades-old kabutarkhanas—designated pigeon-feeding spots—starting July 3. While the High Court initially halted demolitions, it later ruled that feeding pigeons could not be allowed due to the associated health hazards.
On July 30, noting continued feeding despite its earlier warnings, the High Court directed civic officials to lodge prosecutions under Sections 270, 271, and 272 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) against violators. The court said such acts constituted a “public nuisance” likely to spread diseases and endanger human life.
Earlier, on July 24, the court had remarked that unchecked pigeon breeding and congregation posed a matter of “grave social concern” and that the BMC’s measures were aimed at safeguarding public health, from children to senior citizens.
The petitioners, aggrieved by what they termed a “hasty” hearing in the High Court, argued before the Supreme Court that pigeon feeding was a long-standing religious practice among Hindu devotees and should be preserved. They suggested alternatives such as constructing bird towers to balance human-pigeon coexistence. They also contested the civic body’s health hazard claims, citing data attributing asthma cases largely to vehicular emissions and open burning rather than pigeon feeding.
According to the petition, 51 feeding spots have been part of Mumbai’s cultural landscape for decades, and their sudden closure was unwarranted. The plea was filed through Advocate-on-Record Satya Mitra.
Amit Sharma is the Content Editor at JurisHour. He has been writing about the Indian legal market. He has covered tax & company litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and Various Tribunals. Amit graduated from MLSU Law College with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. from MLSU, Udaipur, Rajasthan. An Advocate in Taxation, and practised in Tribunals as well as Rajasthan High Court and pursued Masters in Constitutional Law. He started out small with little resources but a big plan to take tax legal education to the remotest locations across India and eventually to the world. His vision is to make tax related legal developments accessible to the masses.
