Treat street dogs as per ABC Rules, not remove all: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that it has not ordered the removal of all stray dogs from streets and directed authorities to treat them strictly as per Animal Birth Control Rules, as it continued hearing pleas related to stray dog management and public safety
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it had not directed the removal of every dog from the streets and the directive was to treat these stray canines according to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
While hearing arguments in the stray dogs case, the apex court observed that a dog can smell people who are either afraid of them or have suffered a dog bite and they attack such persons.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria was hearing the pleas including the ones filed by dog lovers seeking modification of its earlier orders and those for stringent compliance with the directives.
“We have not directed the removal of every dog from the streets. The direction is to treat them as per the rules,” Justice Mehta observed.
The bench heard submissions of a battery of lawyers including senior advocates C U Singh, Krishnan Venugopal, Dhruv Mehta, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shyam Divan, Sidharth Luthra and Karuna Nundy.
At the outset, senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who is assisting the top court as an amicus curiae in the matter, informed the bench that four states had filed their compliance affidavits in the matter on Wednesday.
During his submissions, Singh said in places like Delhi, there is a rodent menace and the national capital also has a unique problem of monkeys.
He said the abrupt removal of canines would lead to an increase in the rodent population, which has consequences.
“When the rodent population goes up, we have seen very disastrous consequences,” he said.
Justice Mehta observed, “In a lighter vein, dogs and cats are enemies. Cats kill rodents. So we should promote more cats.” Singh said they were not questioning the orders passed by the apex court and were only requesting the bench to revisit it only to modulate it.
“Let these dogs also be regulated in a manner that has proved to be the only efficacious manner, which is sterilisation, vaccination and re-release in the territory,” he said.
The bench said, “Tell us how many dogs each hospital should have roaming around in the corridors, in wards, near patient beds?” Singh said the top court’s intention in the matter was unquestionable and it had noted how the ABC Rules and orders passed by the courts were not implemented.
“What alarmed your lordships and rightly so is the fact that despite the Animal Birth Control Rules being in force, despite court orders to implement it, your lordships found that in a large number of states and in several cities, they are not being implemented,” he said.
Venugopal said dogs cannot be in hospitals and till now, there has been no will to implement the statutory rules.
He said there was no budgetary allocation to ensure the implementation of the rules.
Another senior lawyer argued that a census and data on stray dogs were essential.
When one of the advocates referred to the lack of infrastructure, including that of dog shelters, the bench said, “We are all conscious of that.” “Please tell us, is this micro-chipping, which is mandatory for pet dogs, really happening?” the bench asked.
One of the lawyers said, “In this country, it is not happening but can it happen, should it happen? In my respectful submission, the answer is yes.” Another counsel referred to the stray dog menace in residential complexes and said public ways have to be kept safe.
“We are under no pressure. You are mistaken,” Justice Nath observed, after the lawyer said the apex court was apparently under pressure.
When one of the lawyers argued that one did not know if the dog would like him or not, Justice Nath observed, “A dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs and who has suffered a dog bite and he will always attack.” The counsel referred to a recent case where a pet dog was unleashed by a person on somebody else.
“Unintentionally also, if a pet goes and attacks a neighbour, that is an offence,” the bench observed.
Several lawyers also gave suggestions to deal with the issue.
The hearing in the matter remained inconclusive and would continue on Friday.
Non-compliance of rules
While hearing the arguments on Wednesday, the top court flagged the non-compliances of rules and directions by civic bodies and said people were dying not only due to dog bites alone in the country but also because of accidents caused by stray animals on roads.
Taking note of the “alarming rise” in dog bite incidents within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the apex court on November 7 directed relocation of stray canines forthwith to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.
It also said the stray dogs so picked up shall not be released back in the place they were picked up.
It directed the authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from the state highways, national highways and expressways.
The top court passed a slew of directions in the case over the stray dog matter.
It is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
