SC refuses to recall order on sterilisation of stray dogs
The right to live with dignity encompasses the right to move freely without the threat of harm from dog bite attacks, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday while dismissing pleas seeking a recall of its earlier order on the relocation and sterilisation of stray canines.
“The court cannot remain oblivious to harsh ground realities where children, international travellers and old age people have fallen victim to dog bite incidents,” a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria said in response to the petitions by animal rights activists and others.
The court also issued a slew of directions to states, union territories and other statutory bodies to augment infrastructure to deal with stray dogs. On November 7 last year, the court took note of the “alarming rise” in dog-bite incidents in areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations and directed that stray dogs be relocated to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination. Stray dogs picked up shall not be released back to their original place, the court said.
On Tuesday, the apex court rejected petitions challenging the validity of SOPs on dealing with stray animals issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). It observed that there has been a “discernible absence” of sustained efforts on the part of states and UTs to build infrastructure to deal with the rising population of stray dogs.
Implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework, it said, remains largely sporadic, underfunded and uneven across jurisdictions. The framework includes sterilisation, vaccination, sheltering, and overall scientific management of state arms. Prolonged inaction coupled with the absence of institutional commitment to the effective implementation of the ABC framework has led to aggravation of the problem, which has now assumed dimensions “warranting urgent,” the SC said.
“The right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack, or exposure to life-threatening events, such as dog bites in public areas,” the court ruled. “The state cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate in the face of statutory mechanisms specifically designed to address them,” it added.
States and union territories, it stressed, are under continued constitutional obligation to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens under Article 21a.
“This obligation is not very passive in nature, but casts an affirmative duty upon the states and union territories to take all necessary and effective measures to prevent conditions that pose a threat to public safety, health, and well-being,” the bench directed.
The failure to adopt a proactive, structured, and sustained approach to the problem has resulted in a “largely reactive and crisis-driven response necessitated by the escalation of the problem rather than its prevention”, the court said.
Such an approach is neither efficient nor capable of yielding durable resolutions, particularly in a matter involving public health, human safety and ecological balance.
The bench said in its three-part order that after reserving judgment on January 29 in the present matter, it has been informed of multiple reports indicating that the incidence of dog bites and stray dog attacks continue to occur across the country with alarming frequency and severity.
It also referred to media reports on dog bite incidents in Rajasthan and other places and said they highlighted deeply disturbing incidents in which young children suffered previous injuries, including mauling of the faces and limbs by the street dogs.
“Such incidents not only endanger the safety and dignity of the citizens and visitors, but also adversely affect public confidence in civic administration and in urban governance. The whole set of figures reveal staggering dimensions of the problem — the harm caused by such incidents is not mainly statistical in nature but has great human societal and public health consequences,” the bench said.
Continued non-compliance and non-implementation of the directions issued by the apex court and thereafter by the jurisdictional high court, “shall be viewed seriously”.
In November last year, the court directed authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from the state highways, national highways and expressways.
The top court is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
SC allows euthanasia for rabid dogs
New Delhi: The Supreme Court for the first time on Tuesday, allowed euthanasia for rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous stray dogs to curb the threat to human life
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria issued a slew of directions to deal with the rising population of stray dogs in the country. The bench emphatically stated that ordering the euthanasia of stray dogs is the most important direction it is issuing to authorities and officials of civic bodies.
It said the civic authorities may resort to euthanasia in areas where the stray dog population has reached alarming proportions and where frequent dog bites or aggressive attacks pose a continuing threat to public safety.
The action, as well as other legal measures, may be taken after an assessment by veterinary experts and in strict accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 and other applicable statutory protocols, the bench said. The top court passed the order in a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
On Tuesday, it dismissed pleas seeking a recall of its earlier order on the relocation and sterilisation of stray canines, as it observed that the right to live with dignity encompasses the right to move freely without the threat of harm from dog bite attacks.
It directed the states and Union Territories to ensure the implementation of its earlier direction not to return dogs picked up from public places to the same spot after vaccination/sterilisation. It also directed the states and UTs to take steps to enhance the Animal Birth Control framework.
“Ensure establishment of at least one fully functional ABC centre in each district, duly equipped with requisite infrastructure and trained personnel, surgical facilities and supporting logistics,” the bench said.
“The court cannot remain oblivious to harsh ground realities where children, international travellers and old age people have fallen victim to dog bite incidents,” it added.
