The Supreme Court on May 25 refused to entertain a plea seeking clarification on its May 19 judgment that permits authorities to euthanise rabid, incurably ill, and demonstrably dangerous stray dogs in areas with frequent attacks. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declined to issue any clarification, stating that media reports and public statements cannot be grounds for repeatedly revisiting judgments.
Background of the Case
The NGO 'Animals Are People Too' had approached the apex court seeking a clarification that the May 19 ruling should not be interpreted as allowing indiscriminate culling of stray dogs. The court observed that all high courts have already been directed to monitor the implementation of the stray dog management framework through suo motu proceedings.
Court's Observations
The bench emphasised that earlier judgments had stressed that any euthanasia must follow a veterinary assessment and comply with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control Rules. The court noted that the plea was based on media interpretations rather than any ambiguity in the order itself.
Key Points of the Judgment
- The May 19 judgment allows euthanasia only for rabid, incurably ill, and demonstrably dangerous dogs in high-attack areas.
- Euthanasia must be conducted after proper veterinary assessment.
- Compliance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and ABC Rules is mandatory.
- High courts are already monitoring implementation through suo motu cases.
The Supreme Court's refusal to clarify underscores its stance that the judgment is clear and does not permit indiscriminate culling. The court expects authorities to adhere strictly to the guidelines laid out in the earlier order.
