Expert Panel To Look Into Pigeon Feeding In Mumbai, Says High Court
An expert committee will be formed to look into the issue of feeding pigeons in public and the ban on feeding will continue till the committee report is in, the Bombay High Court said today, pointing out that it is the responsibility of the Brihanmumbai Corporation to protect the health of citizens.
The committee can study whether the old Kabutarkhanas in the city should continue, but "human life is of paramount importance", it said. "If something affects the larger health of senior citizens and kids, then it should be looked into. There has to be a balance," said the bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Arif Doctor.
The Municipal Corporation and the state government have been given clearance to take an appropriate decision by taking the advice of experts. The court said providing an alternative place for the birds can also be considered.
"It was the BMC's (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation) decision (to close Kabutarkhanas) which was challenged before us. We did not pass any order. We only did not grant any interim relief," the judges said.
"All medical reports point at irreversible damage caused by pigeons. Human life is of paramount importance... These are public places where thousands of people are residing... There has to be a balance. There are few who want to feed (pigeons). It is for the government to now take a decision. There is nothing adversarial in this," the bench said.
The next hearing of this case will be on August 13.
Earlier today, a group defied the Bombay High Court's order on banning pigeon feeding at public spaces. They tore up the tarpaulin sheet covers set up by the municipal authorities near the iconic Kabootarkhana in Dadar's Jain Temple to implement the court order due health concerns over pigeon droppings.
The protesters were seen cutting the rope used to fasten the tarpaulin sheets and bringing down the bamboo stems used to hold them up.
The tarpaulin was put up as a stop gap measure after the High Court asked the authorities to punitive action against those who continue to feed pigeons.
The police failed to control the crowd and there was a clash as the protesters entered the feeding spot and began feeding the birds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Dr. Payal Tadvi suicide: HC slams Maha govt over SPP removal, seeks to know if he wishes to return
The Bombay High Court on Monday questioned the Maharashtra government over the manner in which erstwhile Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Pradip Gharat was removed from the trial in the case related suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi in 2019, allegedly due to harassment by her seniors. The court asked the government lawyer to check with Gharat and inform if he was willing to come back to represent the state as SPP in the case. A bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad was hearing plea by Abeda Tadvi, mother of late Payal, who had challenged the March 7, 2025 notification issued by state law and judiciary department that removed Gharat as SPP with immediate effect and appointed another lawyer Mahesh Mule. The mother alleged that the decision was 'arbitrary and illegal' and will lead to delay in trial and risk of losing crucial evidence' and violative of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Payal's three seniors at TN Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital Dr Bhakti Mehare, Dr Ankita Khandelwal and Dr Hema Ahuja are named as accused in the case. Gharat in February had filed an application before sessions court to add the then head of gynaecology department at the Hospital Dr Yi Ching Ling as accused for overlooking the harassment and ragging complaint by Tadvi. The trial court on February 28 ordered Ling's addition as an accused in abetment of suicide case. 'It is very easy to say that the public has great trust in the judiciary. These are testing times These are examples where it is tested. Now the impression of the petitioner is, for some reason, because Mr. Gharat acted strictly, he was removed. When order comes in your favour, Gharat is back and when order is adverse, Gharat is removed,' Justice Ghuge orally remarked. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) SV Gavand for the government submitted that the state government was well within its right and domain to take a decision of removal and claimed that Gharat's appointment too was made by state on its own and not at the mother's instance. However, advocate Lara Jesai for the petitioner mother denied the same and submitted that she too had filed an application for his appointment. The bench expressed displeasure over the justification given by the government to remove Gharat as SPP and said that the same was 'not in a good taste'. The judges questioned the government lawyer, 'Gharat is a seasoned prosecutor. Such a senior advocate who has worked so hard for the state, got you (state government) so many convictions… He put so much hard work in that journalist's (J Dey murder) case. That time he was nice… Entire trial was conducted by him and you got a conviction for nine accused. Who is this officer who writes like this? Therefore, the petitioner wants us to scrutinise the decision (to remove Gharat as SPP) because her faith in the law is shaken.' 'We know it is in your domain but should be done judiciously,' the HC remarked. 'Show him what is written (justification for removal) and make an impression whether he would want to come back,' it told APP Gavand. The court also sought to know who had made an application for Gharat's removal as SPP in January, and along with the file of such correspondence and posted further hearing to August 13.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Court asks police why anti-Gaza war protest can be allowed in Pune but not Mumbai
The Bombay High Court on Monday asked the Mumbai Police to explain why the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Communist Party of India Marxist (CPM) were not being allowed to hold a peaceful protest in the city against the ongoing war in Gaza.A bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad questioned the police after lawyers Mihir Desai and Lara Jesani, representing the petitioners, pointed out that a similar demonstration had been permitted and held peacefully in is not a problem of our country but of some other country. But they still want to protest. What is the problem if they protest when you have permitted in Pune?" the court asked. The Left parties have been seeking permission to hold a protest at Azad Maidan — a designated protest site near Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus — as part of a global call to condemn the Gaza conflict and demand a parties said their demonstration would express solidarity with Palestinians facing "genocide" and with the international movement pressing for humanitarian aid to be allowed into the to their plea, the first request for permission was made on June 13 under the banner of the All India Peace and Solidarity Organisation (AIPSO).The Azad Maidan police rejected it on June 17, citing concerns that the protest's focus on an international issue might contradict India's foreign policy and trigger objections from political, social, and religious groups, leading to possible law and order more applications — on June 25 and July 19 — were also denied, the latest rejection coming on July 15. The parties then approached the High Court, which earlier directed the police to decide the pending application and suggested they focus on local petitioners have argued that the police's reasoning is "untenable" since their protest aligns with the Ministry of External Affairs' stated position calling for a ceasefire and humanitarian relief in Gaza. They also stressed that even if their views were to differ from the government's stance, they have a fundamental right in a democracy to express prosecution is expected to respond to the court on Tuesday.- EndsMust Watch
India Today
9 hours ago
- India Today
Saved you once: Chief Justice recalls contempt warning while junking lawyer's plea
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition by Mumbai-based advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay seeking action against alleged illegal activities of political parties, calling it non-maintainable. The bench also rebuked Upadhyay for his courtroom conduct, with Chief Justice of India BR Gavai recalling a prior contempt warning from his Bombay High Court petition sought directions to State Election Commissions (SECs) to curb alleged illegal activities by political parties that, he claimed, could endanger the "sovereignty, integrity, and unity of the country." The petition also sought directions for the registration of an FIR against MNS leader Raj Thackeray and his workers for allegedly assaulting citizens over the use of the Hindi bench in its order said, "The public interest litigations are necessary but in the name of PILs, we cannot allow publicity interest litigations," while dismissing the plea. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar took strong exception to the petitioner approaching the top court directly, bypassing the High Upadhyay insisted on the maintainability of his petition, the Chief Justice questioned why he had not first approached the Bombay High Court.'Can't this be raised before the Bombay High Court? This is nothing but a publicity interest litigation. Though PILs are necessary to protect citizens' rights, this petition concerns policy matters of the Union or ECI and does not justify a direct approach to the Supreme Court under Article 32,' the bench court permitted Upadhyay to withdraw the petition with the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court instead. 'Take a flight and go and file there tomorrow,' the Chief Justice briefly rose during the hearing when the Chief Justice addressed Upadhyay's courtroom conduct. Reminding him of a prior contempt episode during his tenure as a judge of the Bombay High Court, Chief Justice Gavai warned, 'I have saved you once after finding you guilty. I don't want to issue contempt. Don't make these gestures. Don't remind me of Bombay days. Recollect what saved you that time. Don't make me remind you of what happened there.'Sources familiar with the earlier incident said that Upadhyay had been cautioned by a Bombay High Court bench led by Justice Gavai after he insisted on being heard against the court's advice. A show cause notice for contempt was reportedly considered but later dropped following intervention by another the Monday hearing, Upadhyay, maintaining that the relief sought in his plea could not be granted by the High Court, eventually agreed to withdraw the is not the first time the bench has issued such guidance. Just days earlier, it directed Sunil Shukla, President of the Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena, to approach the High Court first for similar petition had urged the Supreme Court to instruct all SECs to adopt a coordinated framework to monitor and prevent unlawful conduct by political parties. However, the top court reiterated its position that such matters must first be addressed before appropriate High Courts.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
