Supreme Court Asks Women Dog Feeders Alleging Harassment And Assault By 'Vigilantes' To Lodge FIRs, Approach High Courts

While hearing the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court today orally asked women dog feeders levelling allegations of harassment and assault by "anti-feeder vigilantes" to lodge FIRs and move jurisdictional High Courts for relief.The bench highlighted that the acts amount to a criminal offense and asked the aggrieved individuals to approach the authorities for registration of FIR. It reasoned that the Supreme Court cannot sit over all individual cases."If someone is harassing women, it's a crime under the Penal Code. Get FIRs registered. There are procedures available for how to get FIRs registered", said Justice Vikram Nath.A bench of Justices Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. It refused to address the claim of violence against women dog feeders and care-givers at the top Court level, saying it's a law and order problem and remedies are available to the aggrieved under penal law.Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, for an animal rights activist, told the Court that dog feeders, especially women, are being molested, beaten, disrobed and defamed by "vigilantes". She cited some incidents, including one in Ghaziabad where a woman was allegedly slapped 19 times in less than a minute, yet no FIR was registered. She claimed that in some Haryana societies, bouncers have been hired to tackle dog feeders.The senior counsel further contended that in an act of passive endorsement, the authorities are not registering FIRs of women dog feeders who are in fact approaching them. On this, the bench said that remedy can be availed before the concerned Magistrates and/or High Courts (in view of Lalita Kumari judgment). It further noted that its earlier orders were limited to presence of canines on public roads and in institutions; as such, what was being argued was beyond the scope of the matter.Pavani then raised an issue about rampant unregulated breeding of dogs and exotic imports. It was argued that adoption of foreign breeds is one reason for large number of indigenous strays. In response, the bench said that these issues do not arise in the case at hand."You address us on issues we are dealing with. Don't make this a platform for your other objects", said Justice Nath."If there is any illegality in the import or breeding of the imported dog breeds, then there are provisions in the Act. You take recourse of that. This has got nothing to do with the stray dogs issue. Import of our order is very clear - restricted to stray dogs or street dogs. Nothing to do with breeding. Tomorrow you will say why cheetahs have been imported, why not take care of the local breeds? This is too much" added Justice Mehta.Later, Pavani stressed on some derogatory statements allegedly made against women dog feeders. "There are anti-feeder vigilantes who have assumed the role of enforcing the Court orders", she said. When she questioned how someone can have license to use derogatory words against a woman dog feeder in the garb of Court's order, Justice Nath said, "license is there with the public to criticize everyone in derogatory and whatever language they wish to do. We are criticized. In very derogatory language. We don't react".She however emphasized on the repulsive nature of the remarks. "It's to the extent of saying that women sleep with dogs for satisfaction! Who says that? I anticipate that day where your lordships might have to take suo motu of 'A City Hounded My Molesters and Women Feeders Paying the Price'...it's happening across the country".In response, Justice Nath said, "take action...[this Court order has not given license to people to talk like this]...if people are talking like this, you take action against them".In the context of the article on feral dogs that Justice Mehta yesterday asked counsels to read and come prepared with, Pavani highlighted a difference between stray and feral dogs. She claimed that the author himself has acknowledged in the article that the problem is man-made and arises due to garbage/waste.Some of the intervenors prayed for constitution of a Committee by the Court to give expert opinion, highlighting its recent order in the Aravalli Hills case, where a new high-powered expert committee has been proposed by a CJI-led bench.Court must ensure implementation of both MCD Act & Prevention of Cruelty Act: IntervenorsSenior Advocate Shadan Farasat (for animal rights activists Sonia Bose and Avnish Narayan) argued that the case did not represent a conflict between dogs and humans. Rather, it's a case where the State has failed in its statutory duty to balance public safety and animal welfare. He acknowledged that stray dogs can be seen as a menace in some situations, but stressed that the State has failed in implementation of both the MCD Act and the Prevention of Cruelty Act. The senior counsel emphasized that the Court must monitor and ensure implementation of both these Acts to balance public safety and animal welfare."Buck has been passed over to the Court. There's a problem on the...

Supreme Court Asks Women Dog Feeders Alleging Harassment And Assault By 'Vigilantes' To Lodge FIRs, Approach High Courts

Debby Jain

"If someone is harassing women, it's an offense. Take action. Our order is no license for people to use derogatory language", said Justice Nath.

Tags