The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday expressed serious concern over the dual threat posed by stray animals across the country, highlighting that fatalities are not only caused by dog bites but also by road accidents involving these animals. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria made these observations while hearing petitions seeking modifications to the court's earlier orders on the matter.
Court's Stern Remarks on Civic Lapses
The bench pointed out significant lapses by municipal and civic authorities in handling the stray animal crisis. "The roads should be clear of dogs and stray animals. It is not only the dog bites but also the roaming of stray animals on roads that are proving dangerous and causing accidents," the court stated, according to PTI reports. The judges emphasized that civic bodies must implement existing rules, modules, and directions strictly.
Justice Sandeep Mehta underscored the gravity of the situation by revealing a recent, alarming incident. He informed the court that two judges of the Rajasthan High Court had met with accidents in the past 20 days due to stray animals, with one still suffering from spinal injuries. "It's a serious issue," Justice Mehta told the counsel present.
The Debate Over Solutions: CSVR Model vs. Relocation
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing petitioners seeking modification of the court's November 7 order, argued against a blanket round-up of stray dogs. He advocated for a scientific and humane approach, urging the court to adopt the globally accepted CSVR model—Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate, and Release. Sibal submitted that this method would gradually reduce the stray dog population and, consequently, bite incidents. He cited Lucknow as an example where this model had allegedly brought the stray dog count down to nearly zero.
"First of all, this is not an adversarial issue and we are here as dog lovers. If one tiger is a man-eater, we don't kill all tigers," Sibal argued, stressing the need for systematic sterilization. The bench, however, noted that its earlier directions were limited to removing stray dogs from institutional areas like schools and hospitals and did not override existing rules. Justice Vikram Nath remarked, "Prevention is always better than cure."
Focus on Enforcement and State Compliance
The bench clarified that its primary focus was on ensuring strict enforcement of existing rules, regulations, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) by state governments and civic bodies. The court issued a stern warning to states that have been lax in their compliance. "Some states have not responded to compliance with our orders and implementation of the arguments. We will be very harsh with those states. All the rules, regulations and SOPs need to be followed," the bench stated.
Amicus Curiae senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal informed the court that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had prepared an SOP and identified 1,400 km of road as vulnerable stretches. However, the NHAI indicated that post-detection, the responsibility to act lies with state governments. The bench suggested fencing highways and expressways to prevent stray animals from entering.
Agarwal also noted that states including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, and Punjab were yet to file their compliance affidavits, with some received submissions being "disappointing." The court said it would deal with these states accordingly.
The hearing saw additional submissions from senior advocates Colin Gonsalves, Anand Grover, C U Singh, and K K Venugopal, along with animal rights activists. The matter, which stems from the apex court's November 7 directions noting an "alarming rise" in dog bites within institutional areas, remained inconclusive and is scheduled to continue on Thursday.
