Stray Dogs Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing [Day 2]

Hearing to continue tomorrow.

J Mehta: Tomorrow, we would ask all counsels to come prepared after reading a Times of India article published on 29 dec titled "On the roof of the world, feral dogs hunt down Ladakh's rare species".

Nundy (for Neighborhood Woof): In IIT, Delhi we implemented ABC programme on a war footing. No case of rabies has been reported since 3 yrs. Pack aggression virtually eliminated, without relocating dogs or creating permanent detention facilities. We did micro-chipping, geo-tagging...so you know which dogs are peacefully living, which have bitten

Bench: This has been argued, tell us new points

Nundy: We need isolated kennels and transport vehicles for infected dogs. Making sure they are not kept near other animals. Dedicated incinerators for disposal of carcasses of infected dogs - none exist yet. There's an MCD app, let that be properly used. For accurate analysis, we need to treat pet bites and stray dog bites separately. Each RWA is to have different feeding spots. There's growing consensus that ABC Rules have not been implemented. But these Rules work. Given success of IIT model, perhaps in same manner and on a war footing, if the Court designates some institutions and sees what the data is, then we will know. A public education programme can be there.

Counsel for 8 students of DU Law Faculty: We have taken certain initiatives. We did a census to see how many stray dogs were there. There were 49. Between November 2024 and now, we have sterilized and vaccinated on own expense 28. Rest will also be done. In arts faculty, there's 1 dog that bites. In law centre, there has not been even 1 incident

J Nath: Municipal authorities have done nothing

Counsel: Cattles are a hazard on roads. There's non-implementation there also. Municipal authorities don't have gaushalas. We were able to find out that for dogs, there are only 5 govt owned shelters in the country, capacity of 100 dogs each. Only for sick/injured animals. Dog is released back after treatment. Private centres also limited. To implement the Court's directions, infra does not exist. In the interregnum, institutions can be asked to setup animal law cells, get dogs vaccinated at own expense, and bring back dogs. If admn is tasked, there can be immediate relief.

Sr Adv Karuna Nundy appears for an animal welfare organization empaneled with MCD.

Luthra: There are expert bodies under the law. If Rules are to be tinkered with, please look at those bodies. Central Monitoring and Coordinating Committee job is to monitor proper implementation, etc. It's in place under the Rules. There is no legislative vacuum today. Should this court's certain directions override the Rules?

Shyam Diwan: Educational institutions are large campuses. Rule 11(19) of ABC Rules says dogs have to be released back in same area. Experts can suggest where re-release can be ruled out. Prevalence of rodents increases when dogs are removed. Detention and confinement of stray dogs picked up - norm for detention is 4 days. An animal confined for larger amount of time in small space may amount to cruelty. Directions for capturing dogs may be staggered until a local monitoring committee is satisfied that there are sufficient infrastructure arrangements for recovery of dogs. I support Mr Sankaranarayanan in his submission against deposit amounts. Micro-chipping has proved effective, that may also be looked into.

Sr Adv Siddharth Luthra (for Human World for Animals, India) takes to submissions: By 7 November order, the Court passed certain directions which go beyond ABC Rules. At the same time, it has been said that ABC Rules have to be followed.

Counsel: I am not asking for injury to a dog. Community dogs' responsibility can't be forced on someone. Rule 11(3) is bone of contention. If this court's "pilot project" works for the institutions, it can be expanded. Previous order has reinforced my right

J Mehta: SG Mehta suggested voting systems for RWAs, what's your opinion?

Counsel: Even if I am in majority who has lost, who is afraid of dogs, right cannot be whittled away because RWA decided feeding point would be at some place.

Sr Adv Shyam Diwan (for PETA India): Many suggestions have already been made. Our first request is regarding constitution of expert committee. This court has passed 3 orders. In 2021, a 3-member Committee was constituted

J Mehta: That was in case of animals facing extinction. No kind of analogy can be drawn

Diwan: I am saying there's space and room for expert committees here also.

Counsel: If there's a competing right, rules have to be read in a way that my right to access my house is not watered down. My right is as important as that of a dog. We are not suggesting all dogs are to be done away with. They can live in their habitat. But scheme of Act has to be seen. Under Article 21, access to public way or house can't be fettered by a feeding area. Today your lordships are under pressure...

Bench: We are under no pressure

J Nath: Dog can always smell a human who is afraid, someone who has been bitten before and it will bite him. Your pet would also bite. [Someone shakes head in disagreement] We are talking from personal experience, so don't shake your head.

Counsel: Most obliged

J Mehta: Unintentionally if a pet attacks another person, it's an offense

Counsel: Suppose I am 85-yr old, I may feel the stray animal is a nuisance on my way to my house. If your lordships wait for 5-10 yrs more, 100, 1000s more deaths may take place.

Counsel for person behind Lok Abhiyan: Rules intend to decrease dog population. They are not meant to protect dogs. We point out that dog bit a 7-yr old on 7 Oct. Complaint lodged. 2 days later, he bit a 78-yr old. Complaint lodged. 2 days later, he bit another 70-yr old lady. Authorities took him but released back. He bit again. So 4 incidents. After 1st aggressive bite has been demonstrated, should dog be released? As J Mehta said, you can't counsel a dog. Residential complexes must be protected like institutions. Stop the feeding points, at the minimum

It has been argued that dogs are territorial. Every 200m, dog's territory changes. And feeding area is after 500m and does not get feed in his zone, he will try to reach other area and cross zones. There will be conflict. Not having sufficient food in his zone are put at risk. In feeding area there can be concentration of dogs, causing nuisance. Recently, a dog owner was hauled up for letting lose his dog on somebody! Duty of State is limited to giving dog vaccination, etc. It's not the dog owner. Public way has to be kept safe.

Sr Adv Nakul Diwan (for an applicant): Applicant is person running World for Animals. He's got a 45-member team. Having rescued 66000 dogs, sterilized 15000, suggestions he makes are...constitution of an expert committee...idea is to decelerate growth of dogs...there's threat of dog running behind me on roads, but there's also threat that a bus will knock me over (because there are no pavements for runners). We suggest - Trap, Neuter and Release model. It's important, bearing in mind nature of dogs, that they be put back in same place where they were. To equate dogs with roosters, buffaloes may not be appropriate. If you today have a problem, you have to find a humane solution. Affidavit of Haryana, Assam clearly indicate that they don't have existing infrastructure

J Nath: Delhi doesn't. Forget about any another

Diwan: If your lordships pass positive directions, authorities have to comply. But question is whether it will make things better or worse. Micro-chipping of dogs has started in Bangalore. It's not expensive. If there's a requirement where dogs need to be micro-chipped...

J Mehta: Is this micro-chipping, which is mandatory for pet dogs, is it happening?

Diwan: In this country, it's not happening. But should it happen? Yes. Expert committee can look into this aspect. This committee requires state participation also.

Gopal S (Gopal Sankaranarayanan): 96 ABC centres in Karnataka...capacity to sterilize 1000s in a day...municipal authorities were called on to file data in August 22 order...compliance has still not taken place. As a counsel, I would also like to express reservation about direction (g) of the earlier order (which required dog lovers and NGOs to deposit sums prior to being heard). People feel there's commercial barrier to approach the Court. Please see if that can be revisited?

J Nath: If that was not there, you would have to have a pandal to hear the matter!

Sr Adv Vinay Navare: ABC Rules are not under challenge. They are accepted and things should happen as per them. Real problem is with implementation. According to me, there are 2 imp Rules - re-release of dogs mentioned in them. para 33(b) of this Court's order runs contrary. Release is the normal Rule. What Mr Venugopal suggested was extremely positive. 31.03.2026 is the deadline for budget...your lordships may taken that into consideration. Lucknow model has been lauded. Let there be that model in all states. Most crucial agency is the local body - village panchayat, municipal council, etc. They can be involved. Infrastructure has to be enhanced. This court can chart a plan, which HCs can enforce

Bench to re-assemble in a while.