“There Cannot Be Anything More Vital Than Human Health”: Bombay High Court Directs Continuation Of Interim Orders On Pigeon Breeding And Kabutarkhanas
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Bombay Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor has maintained interim orders on regulating pigeon breeding and Kabutarkhanas, citing serious public health concerns. The bench directed the filing of rejoinder affidavits, sought expert medical opinion on the health hazards posed by pigeons, and scheduled further proceedings for 7 August 2025. It also instructed that firecrackers not be used by municipal employees for dispersing pigeons, emphasising that public health must be prioritised over other considerations.
The petitions challenge the continued congregation of pigeons at Kabutarkhanas in Mumbai, citing severe respiratory risks linked to pigeon droppings and feathers. The petitioners argue that exposure to pigeon antigens causes acute interstitial pneumonitis and hypersensitivity pneumonitis, particularly affecting vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly. They requested judicial intervention to restrict open feeding and pigeon breeding in public spaces.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) filed an affidavit through Dr. Amita U. Athavale, Head of Pulmonary Medicine at KEM Hospital, presenting scientific data on health hazards caused by prolonged exposure to pigeon droppings. The affidavit detailed triggers of chronic respiratory diseases, noting that advanced fibrosis resulting from prolonged exposure is irreversible. It also highlighted that children face a higher risk due to their developing immune systems.
Petitioners’ counsel, including Mr. Harish Pandya and Mr. Praful Shah, sought time to file rejoinders challenging MCGM’s claims. The bench granted permission to submit responses before the adjourned hearing.
The Animal Welfare Board of India, represented by Senior Advocate Ms. Manisha T. Karia, suggested humane alternatives for handling the closure of Kabutarkhanas. The court allowed the Board to place its recommendations on record for the Municipal Commissioner.
Intervention was sought by Mr. Anand Pai, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. J.P. Cama, who cited the case of his late father, Senior Advocate Shri Ratnakar Pai, allegedly affected by interstitial lung disease due to pigeon droppings. The court admitted the intervention and directed the inclusion of Mr. Anand Pai as a respondent.
The bench noted that this matter should not be viewed as adversarial but as an issue concerning public health and welfare. Reference was made to a 2018 ruling by Justices A.S. Oka and P.N. Deshmukh, where medical expert Dr. Sujeet Rajan warned about severe respiratory ailments linked to pigeons and recommended dismantling open feeding areas.
The court also took note of complaints about municipal workers using firecrackers to disperse pigeons and prohibited this practice immediately.
The bench observed that the matter involves fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, stating: “There cannot be anything more vital than human health and if there is any hazard and/or potential for such hazard by breeding of pigeons and by congregating them in Kabutarkhanas certainly, it is a matter of grave social concern.”
The judges further stated: “Considering the issues as involved, we are of the opinion that the present proceedings ought not to be considered as adversarial proceedings, in as much as the decision of the Municipal Corporation is stated to be taken in the larger interest of the societal health, which includes health of all categories of persons from children to senior citizens.”
Acknowledging Dr. Athavale’s affidavit, the bench recorded: “It has referred to materials that a person is likely to suffer acute interstitial pneumonitis on exposure to pigeons which are being bred as a hobby. Several aspects in that regard, which according to the deponent have triggered asthma and other diseases like hypersensitivity pneumonitis are discussed.”
The court cited Dr. Sujeet Rajan’s 2018 opinion: “In susceptible people (and often a genetic predisposition can exist too), the pigeon antigen inhaled into the lungs can cause a complex allergic reaction which is very different to that which occurs in asthma. Unlike the airways which get affected in asthma, the structure of the lungs get affected and cause a disease called hypersensitivity pneumonitis (from hereon referred to as HP).”
The report added: “There is no drug currently available in the world to cure or reverse fibrosis, and as it progresses, many of these patients require oxygen at home, and often die suffering on ventilators, or waiting for a lung transplant—something not yet available in Mumbai, extremely expensive, and fraught with complications and poor survival rates, in the few centers in India that offer it.”
The bench directed the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavits in response to the MCGM’s submissions before the next hearing date. The Animal Welfare Board of India was permitted to submit its recommendations to the Municipal Commissioner.
The court allowed the intervention by Mr. Anand Ratnakar Pai and directed that his name be added as a respondent. It also instructed the registry to forward Dr. Athavale’s affidavit to Dr. Sujeet Rajan, requesting his expert opinion within 10 days, which will then be circulated to all parties.
The bench categorically prohibited the use of firecrackers by municipal staff to disperse pigeons. It ordered the continuation of all interim measures issued on 15 July 2025 until the next hearing scheduled for 7 August 2025 at 3:00 p.m.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Harish Pandya, Mr. Malhar Zatakia, Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Mr. Rajesh Bhavsar i/b Mr. Dhruv Jain; Mr. Praful Shah, Mr. Yakshay Chheda i/b SSB Legal & Advisory.
For the Respondents: Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Pai i/b Mr. Sahil Sayyed for Applicants/Intervenors; Ms. Rupali Adhate, Ms. Rutuja Bodake, Ms. Pushpa Yadav i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for BMC; Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for State of Maharashtra; Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Navale for Respondent No. 3; Mr. Ashutosh Misra for Union of India, Respondent No. 4.
Case Title: Gunvatrai Maganlal Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 21694 of 2025 & WPL No. 21199 of 2025
Bench: Justice G.S. Kulkarni, Justice Arif S. Doctor
