Bombay High Court forms expert committee to assess public health impact of feeding pigeons at Kabutarkhanas

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday constituted an expert committee to examine the health impact on human beings due to feeding pigeons in public Kabutarkhanas (pigeon feeding zones) and to ascertain whether such feeding can be permitted in a regulated manner. [Pallavi Sachin Patil and Ors v MCGM]

A bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Arif Doctor passed the order while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) decision to prohibit the feeding of pigeons in certain public places.

The Court had previously observed that it would not be appropriate for the Court to form any final opinion on medical aspects, stating it does not have the expertise to examine such materials and form any final opinion.

The Court had instead proposed the formation of an expert committee comprising members with domain knowledge to provide guidance on the issue.

The State, represented by Advocate General Birendra Saraf, on Wednesday submitted the proposed composition of the committee, which the Court accepted.

The 12-member expert committee includes:

1. Director, Department of Public Health (Chairman);

2. Executive Health Officer, BMC (Member);

3. Director, Town Planning Department (Member Secretary);

4. Director, Bombay Natural History Society (Member);

5. Professor from AIIMS (Member);

6. Officer nominated by Maharashtra Animal Welfare Board (Member);

7. Officer nominated by Animal Welfare Board of India (Member);

8. Dr Sujeet Rajan, Pulmonologist (Member);

9. Dr Amita Athavale, Pulmonologist (Member);

10. Professor of Immunology, nominated by Government Medical College (Member);

11. Professor of Veterinary Science, nominated by Government Veterinary College (Member);

12. Microbiologist nominated by Dean, JJ Hospital (Member).

The scope of reference for the expert committee is two fold. First, the committee has to consider the impact on public health arising from the feeding of pigeons, including the effect that pigeon droppings may have on public health.

Second, in the event the committee concludes that the feeding of pigeons does indeed adversely affect public health, it must then assess whether such activity can still be permitted in a regulated manner without compromising public health.

In doing so, the committee is expected to examine whether specific places can be designated for such feeding and to consider the nature of any regulations that may be required.

While accepting the scope of reference, the Court stated:

"We are of the opinion that it eminently in the larger public interest, that such expert committee is constituted. We accordingly direct that the aforesaid expert committee shall stand appointed"

The Court directed that the constitution of the committee be notified by the State government by August 20 and that the committee make an effort to submit its report within one month of its first meeting.

Further, the Court allowed the committee the discretion to consult additional experts, if required, in order to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the issues involved, keeping in mind the overarching concern of public health.

The Court also noted that several petitioners had filed applications before the Municipal Commissioner seeking permission to feed pigeons at fixed time intervals. The BMC was directed to issue a public notice inviting responses from stakeholders and decide the applications accordingly.

“It is imperative that the Municipal Commissioner takes an informed decision in accordance with law on these applications of the Petitioners,” the Bench said.

It will hear the application next on September 10.

Advocate Harish Pandya along with advocates Malhar Zatakia, Rohit Agarwal, Dhruv Jain, Anushka Jain instructed by advocate Dhruv Jain appeared for petitioner Pallavi Sachin Patil.

Senior Advocate AY Sakhare along with advocate Praful Shah along with advocates Yakshay Chheda, Gunjan Shah instructed by SSB Legal & Advisory appeared for another petitioner Gunvatrai Maganlal Shah.

Madhavi Tavanandi instructed by advocate Harshad Garud appeared for petitioner Shashwat Foundation.

Advocate Ankit Lohia along with advocate Nikita Bhansali, Drishti Solanki, Dheer Sampat instructed by Yasmin Bhansali & Co appeared also for Pallavi Sachin Patil.

Advocate Ashish Mehta along with advocate Kajol Shah instructed by Omii Mehta appeared for petitioner Hardik Hundiya.

Senior Advocate Ram Apte along with Rupali Adhate instructed by Komal Punjabi appeared for BMC.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf with Government Pleader PH Kantharia with Additional Government Pleader Manish Upadhye appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate Manisha Karia and advocate Vishal Navale appeared for Animal Welfare Board of India.

Advocate Ashutosh Misra represented the Union of India.

[Read Order]