Stray Dogs Case: PETA, Animal Welfare Groups Urge Supreme Court To Permit Release Of Dogs At Place Of Capture

In the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court today commented on the municipal authorities' failure to tackle threat of stray dogs. It further voiced concern that dogs can smell fear and attack someone who is afraid or has been bitten before.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. The hearing will continue tomorrow, for which Justice Mehta has asked all parties to come prepared after reading a report published by a news portal on December 29 titled "On the roof of the world, feral dogs hunt down Ladakh's rare species".The Court is considering applications seeking modification of the order passed in November last year, as per which strays found in the premises of public institutions, bus stations, schools, hospitals, campuses etc., must be captured and should not be released at the same location after vaccination/sterilisation.Yesterday, the matter was heard extensively, with the bench primarily examining the issue of stray dogs in institutional premises. It was questioned whether spaces such as courts, schools and hospitals should have canine presence at all. "Should people suffer because of the authorities' failure to comply with the ABC Rules?" the Court asked. A detailed report on the hearing can be read here.Today, at the outset, Amicus & Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal apprised the Court that 4 states which remained to file their affidavits had done the needful after yesterday' hearing, taking the number of states/UTs which had filed their responses to 16. He was given time to file a revised note.Dogs v. Cats v. Rodents: Do canines help control rodent menace?Continuing his submissions from yesterday, Senior Advocate CU Singh pointed out that 4 States have objected to the Standard Operating Procedure formulated by the Animal Welfare Board (pursuant to the Court's November order). He further contended that India, especially Delhi, also has a monkey and rodents menace and presence of canines in any area maintains a natural balance. "What happens when there's abrupt removal of canines - rodent population shoot up. They are disease carriers. Canines maintain balance" he said.Justice Mehta however questioned if there was a correlation between the dogs and rodent population. In lighter vein, he also said that cats, which bear enmity with rodents, can be promoted to tackle rodent menace. That way, stray dogs will not be required. The judge also underlined that the Court's November order has not directed removal of "every dog" from the streets. Rather, it has necessitated that the dogs be treated as per ABC Rules.Subsequently, when CU Singh prayed for a more "modulated" order, pressing that re-release of stray dogs in areas from where they are picked up, after sterilization and vaccination, has proved efficacious, Justice Mehta quipped,"Tell us how many dogs each hospital should have? Roaming around in the corridors, in the wards, near the patient's bed?" In response, CU Singh clarified that he was not trying to confront the bench. He said that the November 7 order was well-intended, but had unintended consequences.The senior counsel further highlighted that if large number of stray dogs are put in congested environments like shelters, the problem can get exacerbated due to spread of diseases. "The fact that States have violated rules or orders should not result in jettison of the Rules", he added.Dogs can smell fear and attack someone who is afraid: Justice NathA counsel representing an intervenor (Lok Abhiyan organization member) argued that the ABC Rules were not meant to protect dogs, but rather, to decelerate their population. He underlined a case where a dog attacked different people (including 7-yr old child and elderly women) on 4 occasions within a span of days, because it was taken away by authorities but later released in the same area."After first aggressive bite has been demonstrated, should a dog be released?" he questioned. He prayed that at the minimum, feeding in public areas must be stopped. Protection for residential complexes, like educational institutions, was also sought.The counsel further emphasized that the State is not the "owner" of stray dogs and has limited duty. He also pointed to risks posed by feeding areas being far part, while stray dogs are known to be territorial. "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."While hearing him, Justice Nath orally commented that a dog can smell fear and attack someone it finds to be afraid. Dogs are also prone to attack someone who has been bitten before, the judge added. When someone on the Bar's side shook head in disagreement, Justice Nath said, "don't shake your head, we are speaking from personal experience. Your pet also bites you [because of similar logic]". Later, the...

Stray Dogs Case: PETA, Animal Welfare Groups Urge Supreme Court To Permit Release Of Dogs At Place Of Capture

Debby Jain

"Municipal authorities have done nothing. Dogs can smell fear and attack someone who is afraid or has been bitten before", said J Vikram Nath.

Tags