The Supreme Court of India has issued a stern directive to civic bodies across the nation, emphasizing the urgent need to clear roads and public spaces of stray dogs and other animals to ensure public safety. The court's observations prompted a sharp, viral response from former Lok Sabha member and actor Divya Spandana, popularly known as Ramya, on social media.
Court's Stern Warning on Stray Animal Menace
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria expressed serious concern on Wednesday over the non-compliance by municipal authorities in managing stray animals. The judges highlighted that the danger is not limited to dog bites but also includes accidents caused by animals roaming on roads. "The roads should be clear of dogs and stray animals. No one knows which dog is in what mood in the morning," the bench remarked, underscoring the unpredictable risk to citizens.
Justice Sandeep Mehta brought attention to recent incidents involving judges in Rajasthan, where one suffered severe spinal injuries due to such hazards, calling it a "serious issue." The court warned that states failing to comply with its directives would face strict action.
Ramya's Provocative Social Media Counter
Reacting to the Supreme Court's comments, actor-politician Divya Spandana (Ramya) took to her Instagram story with a pointed question. She wrote, "Can't read a man's mind too, don't know when he will rape, so all men should be put in jail?" Her rhetorical statement quickly garnered attention, adding a layer of public debate to the court's focus on animal behavior and public safety.
The Legal Debate: CSVR Method and Implementation Hurdles
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing petitioners, advocated for a scientific and humane approach to population control. He proposed the widely recognized CSVR (Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate, Release) method. "If one tiger is a man-eater, we don't kill all tigers. We must make sure that sterilisation takes place and the population must come down," Sibal argued, stressing that prevention is better than cure.
The bench, however, clarified that its November 7 order was specifically aimed at clearing institutional areas of stray dogs without disrupting existing animal welfare rules. In a lighter moment, the justices quipped about the need to "provide counselling to the dogs so that he doesn't bite when released back."
Amicus curiae Senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal informed the court that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had identified 1,400 km of road stretches as vulnerable. He emphasized that the responsibility lies with state governments to address the issue, suggesting measures like fencing highways. Agarwal also noted that states including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, and Punjab had not yet filed compliance affidavits, with some responses being "very disappointing."
Other senior advocates, including Colin Gonsalves and Anand Grover, pointed out practical challenges such as insufficient shelter capacity and the risk of rabies transmission in crowded facilities. With arguments inconclusive, the matter is scheduled for further hearing. The court had previously directed that sterilized and vaccinated stray dogs be relocated to designated shelters and not returned to their original locations, and that all stray cattle be removed from highways.
