Do NGOs, activists claiming to care for stray animals accept liability, asks SC
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked whether animal welfare organisations, NGOs and individuals, who claim to care for or exercise control over stray dogs in a given locality, would be willing to accept tortious liability in respect of any injury, harm or damage caused by the canines to members of the public.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria said while considerable emphasis has been placed on the protection, feeding and continued presence of community dogs in public and institutional spaces, a pertinent question arises as to whether such individuals, organisations and associations would be willing to assume the corresponding legal responsibility for the consequences arising therefrom.
“The issue assumes significance inasmuch as the assertion of a right to protect or maintain stray dogs in public spaces cannot be divorced from the obligation to ensure that such actions do not result in harm to others,” the bench said in its 131-page order.
It noted that the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), University of Law, Hyderabad, has argued that it has institutionalised humane treatment of stray dogs on its campus by creating the Animal Law Centre and all stakeholders, including the students and the staff, are being sensitised towards the dogs present on the campus.
The bench said in case the Animal Law Centre wishes to carry out the work in terms of the Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release (CSVR) model inside the campus of the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, such activity can be allowed on an experimental basis, subject to the pre-condition that the centre shall furnish an undertaking to the vice-chancellor that, in the event of any incident of stray-dog bite on the campus, it shall be liable to face tortious liability for the injury caused to the individuals concerned.
The court said it is of the considered opinion that any framework concerning the management and protection of stray dogs must necessarily be accompanied by clearly-defined principles of accountability.
“The assertion of rights or interests in favour of such animals cannot operate in isolation, divorced from the corresponding responsibility to safeguard human life and safety.
“Insofar as the animal welfare groups or student-led bodies in educational institutions are concerned, it shall be mandatory for any such group or body operating within such campuses to expressly undertake such liability by filing an affidavit to this effect with the head of the institution concerned, failing which no such activity of maintaining or feeding stray dogs shall be permitted within the institutional premises. Failure to comply would entail suitable action against the head of the institution concerned,” it ruled.
The bench said institutional spaces, by their very nature, require a heightened standard of safety and any activity that potentially compromises such safety must be accompanied by a corresponding assumption of responsibility.
“The absence of any clear framework for fixing such liability further underscores the imbalance between the assertion of rights in favour of stray animals and the lack of accountability for the consequences of their presence in sensitive environments.
“This aspect, in the considered view of this court, merits serious consideration in the overall approach towards managing the issue of stray dogs in public and institutional spaces,” the top court said.
