Apex court bans indiscriminate culling of strays
The Supreme Court's recent order that local authorities cannot put down stray dogs, unless the latter are “irretrievably ill” or “suffering from rabies” is as humane as it is pragmatic, balancing the concerns of both man and animal. It shields the strays from indiscriminate killing while also factoring in public safety issues. This was much-needed, given the increasing number of cases wherein either stray dogs have been poorly treated by humans or humans have been attacked by stray dogs. In both cases, local authorities and the public have often been found unable to respond in an effective manner. For example, the Kerala High Court recently approved of the Thiruvananthapuram civic body’s culling of stray dogs by while the New Delhi Municipal Corporal had circulated a survey asking residents if stray dogs should be removed and taken to ‘sanctuaries'. Previously, the Bombay High Court had allowed municipal authorities in Maharashtra to kill all stray dogs causing ‘nuisance’. This decision was stayed by the Supreme Court in 2009. On the other hand, humans have also been attacked, and in some cases fatally so, by street dogs. In August, for example, a pack of dogs killed a child in Delhi's Jamia Nagar. Such incidents breed public resentment, which, in turn, puts pressure on local authorities to take drastic measures — like large-scale culling. But few realise that, apart from being barbaric, such measures are counter-productive. The dogs that are removed are quickly replaced by other dogs from neighbouring areas, and the situation is back to square one. The only solution is the Animal Birth Control programme which calls for the sterilisation and vaccination of stray dogs who must be returned to their neighbourhoods after treatment. Since dogs are territorial, they prevent other dogs from coming in. Over time, the dog population of an area stabilises. Developed by the World Health Organisation, this programme is already mandated by the Government of India for implementation across the country. However, local authorities often do not have resources or the administrative push to carry out the ABC programme. The apex court has now asked all local authorities to build up the infrastructure needed to control the stray dog population, such as setting up a number of dog pounds, having proper dog vans and ambulances, and employing trained dog catchers. But it is to be seen how effectively the ruling is enforced.
The other problem here has been the loopholes and inconsistencies in the existing laws and rules on animal control, which has allowed for different interpretations even by the courts. Now, the Supreme Court has stepped in and given clear directions on the issue, based on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001. True, this is an interim measure but there is no reason to suspect that the order will not be formalised at the final hearing scheduled for March 2016.