Apartment Association imposing blanket ban on pets using terrace

I’m looking for legal guidance regarding a recent decision taken by my apartment association. I live in a gated apartment complex in Chennai. Recently, the Managing Committee circulated a notice stating that pets are strictly prohibited from using the terrace, citing hygiene and safety concerns. The notice mentions repeated incidents of pet urine and droppings in common areas and says that photographic evidence exists, though no specific residents have been identified individually. We are responsible pet owners. My mother and I are the only ones who walk our dog. He is always on a leash, his walks are very short, and we clean up immediately every time. We have never received any complaint, warning, or evidence against us personally. Our concern is that: The terrace is a common area, and the prohibition is a blanket ban on all pet owners, not targeted at specific violators. The association claims to have photographic evidence, but instead of acting against specific individuals or imposing fines, it has chosen to restrict all pet owners. No enforcement mechanisms such as CCTV, fines, or warnings have been implemented, even though these were suggested. When we raised the issue, the President replied that there cannot be exemptions to a common rule and that the matter will be handled “as per law and bylaws,” but did not specify which law or bylaw authorizes a total prohibition. We are not asking for special exemptions. We are asking whether: An apartment association can legally impose a complete ban on pets accessing a common area due to hygiene issues, instead of regulating behaviour. Whether such a ban is valid without identifying or penalizing actual violators. Whether bylaws can override general legal principles regarding pet ownership and use of common areas. What remedies are available if responsible pet owners are affected by arbitrary or blanket restrictions. We are willing to comply with reasonable rules, monitoring, and penalties for violations, but the current prohibition feels excessive and not solution-oriented. Any guidance on the legal position, relevant judgments, or next steps would be appreciated. Thank you.