Stray dogs case: SC refuses to go into issue of harassment of women dog feeders
The Supreme Court on Friday said it would not go into the allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by purported anti-feeder vigilantes since it was a law-and-order issue and the aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs about it.
Hearing arguments in the stray dogs case, the Supreme Court also refused to go into the claims about certain derogatory remarks being made about women in the issue.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria observed that some of the arguments made before it were “far from reality” and there were a number of videos of stray dogs attacking children and the elderly.
The Supreme Court was hearing arguments on pleas, including the ones filed by dog lovers, seeking modification of its earlier orders and those for stringent compliance with the directives. Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted the plight of women dog feeders and caregivers and said anti-feeder vigilantes have assumed the role of enforcing the Supreme Court’s order passed earlier in the matter.
“Under the garb of this, they are harassing women, they are molesting women, and they are beating women,” she said.
Justice Nath observed, “Lodge an FIR against them. Who stops you?”
The bench said that if anyone was harassing or molesting women, it was a crime, and the aggrieved person could set the criminal law in motion by lodging an FIR.
When Pavani referred to an incident where a dog feeder was attacked in her house, the bench said, “All this is a criminal offence. You lodge an FIR against that”.
“We can’t take up these individual cases where something is going wrong somewhere. This court is not going to monitor that. That is a law-and-order problem,” Justice Nath observed.
Pavani said that in Haryana, certain societies hired bouncers to remove dog feeders, and a woman was slapped in Ghaziabad, but no FIR was lodged. “We are not going to accept this. If a criminal offence is committed, an FIR will be registered. There are procedures available to you, remedies available, and how to get it registered,” the bench said.
The senior advocate flagged the issue of unregulated breeding and exotic imports.
“Again, this has nothing to do with the stray dog’s issue. There are remedies in the Act and the rules. Don’t make this a platform for other objects. You address us on the issues which we are dealing with in this matter,” the bench said.
It said the import of the Supreme Court’s order was very clear, and it was restricted to stray dogs only. “Tomorrow, you will say why Cheetahs have been imported to Kuno (national park). Why not take care of the local breeds? This is too much. Sorry,” Justice Mehta said.
When Pavani argued that derogatory remarks were being made regarding women in the matter, the bench said, “How is that relevant in this context?”
“Even though we are being criticised in very derogatory language, we don’t react,” Justice Nath said, adding that one can take action on this issue. “We have not given any kind of licence to people to talk like this. If they are talking like this, you take action against them,” the bench said.
The bench also heard submissions of other lawyers, including senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Shadan Farasat, in the matter.
When one of the lawyers referred to a dog at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), the bench asked whether it was taken even to the operation theatre.
“Any dog on the street is bound to have ticks. And a dog with ticks in a hospital, do you understand what disastrous consequences would befall?” the bench posed. “Don’t try to glorify that there was a dog at AIIMS.”
Singhvi said this was now not entirely a matter about dogs or humans, and it was about certain constitutional principles.
At the fag end of the hearing, a lawyer said he has put up videos if the court would like to see them.
