The Supreme Court of India on Thursday continued its crucial hearing on the contentious issue of stray dog management across the country. A three-judge Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria, expressed serious concerns over the rising number of dog bite incidents and the widespread failure of municipal authorities to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules effectively.
Court's Focus: Vaccination, Sterilisation, Release
The case, which returned to national prominence last year, revolves around finding a humane and lawful solution. The Bench made it clear that the preferred approach is vaccination, sterilisation, and release of stray dogs, moving away from earlier suggestions of permanent confinement or mass removal. This shift in stance came after an initial order for rounding up strays in Delhi sparked protests from animal rights activists.
During the proceedings, the judges shared pointed observations linking human fear to canine aggression. "The dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs. It will always attack when it senses that. We are talking from personal experience," the Bench remarked. They added that even pet dogs might attack if they sense fear, emphasising the behavioural aspect of the conflict.
Legal Arguments Highlight Systemic Failures
Counsel appearing in the case stressed that the goal is not to eliminate dogs but to enforce the law in a manner that balances public safety with animal welfare. "We are not suggesting that dogs have to be done away with. But the scheme of the act has to be understood in the right perspective," one lawyer submitted.
Arguments delved into the distinction between pet and stray dogs, with a focus on territorial behaviour. Lawyers pointed out that dogs are inherently territorial, with zones changing every 200-300 metres, and that poorly planned community feeding areas could exacerbate conflicts with residents.
Senior advocate Nakul Dewan called for the formation of an expert committee, acknowledging that the problem is complex and cannot be solved overnight. "This is not a problem that can be eliminated in a day. We need to decelerate the growth of community dogs," he said. He highlighted critical gaps in infrastructure and data collection across various states, noting that effective implementation of the ABC programme is impossible without proper systems in place.
Microchipping, Budgets, and Unintended Consequences
The discussion also touched upon the microchipping of dogs. When Dewan mentioned that dogs can be micro-chipped, the Court inquired whether the mandatory microchipping of pet dogs was being enforced at all.
Other senior counsel underlined the challenges of budgetary constraints and poor compliance by local municipal bodies. It was submitted that only a limited number of animal birth control centres nationwide are accredited. A significant warning was also raised about the potential unintended consequences of suddenly removing dogs, such as a possible spike in rodent populations in urban areas.
In a wry observation, the Bench highlighted the practical dilemmas faced in urban spaces, asking, "Tell us how many dogs you want roaming around in hospital corridors?"
The hearing indicated that the Supreme Court sees the solution in the proper enforcement of the existing ABC framework, rather than diluting or abandoning it. The matter is set to continue as the Court seeks a sustainable path forward that protects both citizens and animals.
