'Why Stray Dogs Needed In Institutions? Can Anyone Identify Which Dog Is In A Mood To Bite?' Supreme Court Asks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the stray dog matter extensively, primarily examining the issue of stray dogs in institutional premises, with the Bench questioning whether spaces such as courts, schools and hospitals should have canine presence at all.A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, heard the matter for the entire first half of the day. The hearing saw submissions from victims of dog attacks, animal welfare organisations, senior law officers and representatives of educational institutions.On November 7, the Court had directed the removal of stray dogs from institutional premises including schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations. The Court had ordered that such dogs be relocated to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination and specifically directed that dogs picked up from institutional areas should not be released back at the same location.The directions triggered several applications seeking modification, clarification or suspension, particularly on the ground that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules mandate release of sterilised and vaccinated dogs back to the same area from where they are captured.At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Nath stated that the Court would hear all sides. “We will hear everyone today. We will hear the victims, then the haters and the lovers both,” he said.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for authorities, quipped, “There are those who appear for dogs, and those who appear for humans”.Institutional premises and safety concernsDuring the hearing, the Bench repeatedly emphasized that institutional premises stand on a different footing from public streets.Justice Mehta observed, “As far as institutions are concerned, they are not streets. Why do you need dogs in court premises, schools? What are we discussing?” He further pointed out that institutions are spaces meant for unhindered access by children, patients, persons with disabilities and the general public.Justice Nath highlighted the element of unpredictability involved. “It's not just biting,” he said. “It's also the threat caused by dogs. Of accidents. How can you identify? Which dog is in what mood in the morning, you don't know.”Status of compliance by StatesSenior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, the amicus curiae in the matter, informed the Bench that pursuant to the November order, the Animal Welfare Board had framed and circulated a standard operating procedure (SOP). He stated that directions had also been issued for removal of stray animals from national highways to prevent accidents and that the National Highways Authority of India had identified vulnerable stretches.The amicus placed on record the status of affidavits filed by States and Union Territories. He submitted that several major States, including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Karnataka, had not filed affidavits until late the previous night. He added that some affidavits that were filed were inadequate in detailing infrastructure capacity, shelter availability and concrete measures taken.Referring to Maharashtra's affidavit, the amicus stated that while certain numbers were provided, it was not possible to assess whether sufficient infrastructure existed. He cited data indicating that out of a large stray dog population, only a limited number had been shifted to permanent shelters. He described some of the affidavits as “disappointing”.Justice Nath asked which States had failed to comply and indicated that the Court would take a strict view of non-compliance. “We will be harsh on states which have not responded,” he said.Submissions from victims of dog bitesSeveral applicants addressed the Court on the issue of safety. One applicant submitted that thousands of people were bitten by dogs annually and that implementation of the ABC Rules had been ineffective. “I am a dog lover, but I am also a human lover,” the applicant said, adding that despite earlier court orders, State authorities had failed to act.Another applicant referred to an incident in a group housing society where his daughter was attacked by multiple dogs and submitted that children were unable to move freely in such spaces. The applicant sought removal of dogs from residential and institutional premises.A counsel appearing through video conference attempted to show a photograph depicting a dog attack victim. The Bench intervened, with Justice Nath stating, “Put down the photo, make your submissions.”The Bench asked the victims' counsel to confine themselves to suggestions and practical measures.Animal welfare groupsSenior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for animal welfare groups, submitted that the matter was not adversarial. He argued that isolated incidents could not be a basis for removing all dogs from an area. “If one tiger attacks a man, it does not mean all tigers have to be caged,” he said.Sibal contended that population control through sterilisation and vaccination was the only...

'Why Stray Dogs Needed In Institutions? Can Anyone Identify Which Dog Is In A Mood To Bite?' Supreme Court Asks

Debby Jain

'Should people suffer because of the authorities' failure to comply with the ABC rules?' the Court asked.

Tags