India Insights: Faith Vs. Public Health - Mumbai’s Battle Over Pigeon Feeding
Atul Pandey
In July 2025, Mumbai’s deeply spiritual tradition of pigeon feeding, an act central to many Jain and Gujarati households, was met with an unexpected legal reckoning. The Bombay High Court, citing mounting concerns over respiratory illnesses and public sanitation, ordered the closure of 51 kabutarkhanas (pigeon-feeding spots) across the city.
Within days, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) began enforcing the ban: sacks of grain were removed, feeding sites were tarped, and between July 13 and August 3, 142 individuals were fined a total of ₹68,700 for defying the order. The order ignited widespread resistance. Hundreds of predominantly Jain protesters tore down coverings at iconic sites like Dadar and even clashed with police to continue their feeding rituals.
Legal appeals followed, but the Supreme Court refused to intervene, directing challengers back to the High Court and effectively upholding the ban. At the heart of the controversy lies a powerful question: in the collision between Mumbai’s spiritual heritage and growing health imperatives, which wins and at what cost?
Context & Trigger
In July, a heated Legislative Council debate set the stage for a sweeping citywide crackdown: Maharashtra Industries Minister Uday Samant declared the immediate shutdown of 51 kabutarkhanas due to rising respiratory health concerns linked to droppings and feathers. Within a day, the BMC began dismantling infrastructure at these sites and seizing feed, notably removing some 25 sacks of grain at Dadar’s kabutarkhana.
The Bombay High Court swiftly became involved in the controversy. On July 15, it issued an interim order that halted the demolition of heritage kabutarkhanas and pressed for evidence-based policymaking directing inputs from the pulmonary department at KEM Hospital and other expert authorities. Then, on July 24, the court explicitly highlighted public health, citing findings that link pigeon droppings to hypersensitivity pneumonitis (“pigeon lung”) and asthma, while calling for a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment.
Despite ongoing legal pushback from feeding advocates, by late July the High Court had greenlit criminal enforcement: the BMC was ordered to register FIRs (First Information Report) under applicable public-health and nuisance provisions against anyone caught feeding pigeons, and to ramp up monitoring through CCTVs and beat marshals.
On the health front, documented medical evidence undergirds the city’s concerns. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis is a serious lung inflammation often mistaken initially for asthma or a lingering cough. Unchecked, it can progressively lead to debilitating fibrosis.
Faith & Cultural Resistance
For those practicing Jainism, as well as many Gujarati families, the practice of feeding pigeons stems from deeply held religious convictions. Rooted in the principle of Ahimsa, or non-violence, Jain ethics extend compassion to all living beings, mandating kindness even toward small creatures. Offering food to pigeons is seen not merely as charity, but as Abhayadana, granted protection to beings in need, earning spiritual merit (Punya) and safeguarding one’s karmic path.
This tradition is woven into Mumbai's cultural fabric. For over a century, philanthropists in the city have built kabutarkhanas. Today, the city hosts more than 50 such kabutarkhanas, many adjacent to Jain temples and longstanding community cores.
For many devotees, especially elderly practitioners, the simple act of scattering grain is an enduring ritual, a daily connection to spiritual roots and communal memory. As one Jain participant in a protest march put it: feeding pigeons is so central to faith that now, “hundreds of pigeons have died of starvation,” a claim evoking the sorrow and urgency felt by those who see birds as spiritual dependents.
One Jain monk, Nareshchandra Ji Maharaj, declared a fast until death unless the feeding ritual was reinstated, warning of the spiritual and physical toll of denying these creatures sustenance. These threats of self-sacrifice and communal protest served as emotive flashpoints, signaling how deeply the feeding ritual resonates and how its removal is perceived as an existential affront to faith.
Tension Point: The Court’s Balancing Act
The Bombay High Court is neither dismissing the religious significance of pigeon feeding nor ignoring the legitimate public health concerns.
On August 13, 2025, the High Court constituted an expert committee comprised of health professionals, town planners, immunologists, microbiologists, and veterinary scientists. Its mandate was to assess whether pigeon feeding can safely continue under regulated conditions, and if so, recommend structured feeding locations that do not compromise public health.
While the BMC had suggested permitting feeding between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM with hygiene protocols, the court rebuked this proposal criticizing ad hoc policy shifts, and insisted any such decision be grounded in public consultation and expert advice.
The court extended the ban as an interim measure but simultaneously authorized stakeholders, including Jain trusts, activists, and residents, to file objections or suggestions to the BMC for any controlled-feeding applications ensuring participatory decision-making.
Mumbai has always thrived on contradictions. It is a city where centuries-old traditions coexist with the demands of global finance, where ancient temples stand in the shadows of glass skyscrapers, and where faith rituals spill into streets that double as arteries of modern commerce. The pigeon-feeding ban is just the latest flashpoint in this delicate balancing act.
On one hand, the High Court’s intervention can be read as a pragmatic step in urban health governance an attempt to shield millions from invisible but serious respiratory risks. On the other, it has been received as a deeper affront to identity and devotion, a warning sign that modern governance might increasingly override cultural heritage in the name of public order.
The paradox is clear: a city that prides itself on being both deeply traditional and relentlessly modern now faces a test of how much space it is willing to cede to either side.
For Mumbai’s 20 million residents, the question lingers: should public health take precedence over cultural legacy, or can the two be reconciled without one erasing the other?
