The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed pleas seeking a recall of its earlier order on the relocation and sterilisation of stray dogs. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria also issued a slew of directions to states, union territories and other statutory bodies to augment infrastructure to deal with stray dogs.
Supreme Court's Observations and Directions
The top court said that it cannot remain oblivious to harsh ground realities where children, international travellers and old age people have fallen victim to dog bite incidents. For the first time, the court allowed euthanasia for rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous stray dogs to curb the threat to human life. The bench emphatically stated that preventing the euthanasia of stray dogs is the most important direction it is issuing to authorities and officials of civic bodies.
The action, as well as other legal measures, may be taken after an assessment by veterinary experts and in strict accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 and other applicable statutory protocols, the bench said. The bench also dismissed petitions challenging the validity of Standard Operating Procedures on dealing with stray animals issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India.
Lack of Infrastructure and Implementation
It observed that there has been a 'discernible absence' of sustained efforts on the part of states and union territories to build infrastructure to deal with the rising population of stray dogs. The court pulled up states and union territories, stating that the implementation of the Animal Birth Control framework remains largely sporadic, underfunded and uneven across jurisdictions. The framework includes sterilisation, vaccination, sheltering, and overall scientific management of state arms.
The bench also said that states and union territories are under a continued constitutional obligation to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens under Article 21a. 'This obligation is not very passive in nature, but casts an affirmative duty upon the states and union territories to take all necessary and effective measures to prevent conditions that pose a threat to public safety, health, and well-being,' the bench directed.
Urgent and Systemic Intervention Needed
Prolonged inaction coupled with the absence of institutional commitment to the effective implementation of the ABC framework has led to aggravation of the problem, which has now assumed dimensions 'warranting urgent and systemic intervention,' the top court said. 'The state cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate in the face of statutory mechanisms specifically designed to address them,' it added.
The bench also referred to media reports on dog bite incidents in Rajasthan and other places, saying they highlighted deeply disturbing incidents in which young children suffered previous injuries, including mauling of the faces and limbs by street dogs. 'Such incidents not only endanger the safety and dignity of the citizens and visitors, but also adversely affect public confidence in civic administration and in urban governance. The whole set of figures reveal staggering dimensions of the problem… the harm caused by such incidents is not mainly statistical in nature but has great human societal and public health consequences…,' the bench said.
In November last year, the court directed authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from state highways, national highways and expressways. The TOI News Desk comprises a dedicated and tireless team of journalists who operate around the clock to deliver the most current and comprehensive news and updates to readers worldwide.
