New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it had not directed the removal of every dog from the streets and its order pertained to dealing with these stray dogs under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules.
Hearing arguments in the stray dog case, the court observed that dogs can sense people who are either afraid of them or have been bitten by a dog, and they tend to attack such people.
A special bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria is hearing petitions filed by dog lovers seeking modification of the court’s earlier orders and strict compliance with the directions.
Justice Mehta said, “We have not directed the removal of all dogs from the streets. The direction is that they should be dealt with under the rules.” The bench heard arguments from several lawyers, including senior advocates CU Singh, Krishnan Venugopal, Dhruv Mehta, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shyam Diwan, Siddharth Luthra, and Karuna Nundy.
At the outset of the hearing, senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, assisting the court in the matter, informed the bench that four states had filed their compliance affidavits in the case on Wednesday. During his arguments, Singh said that places like Delhi have a rat menace and the national capital also has a unique problem with monkeys.
He said that the sudden removal of dogs would lead to an increase in the rat population, which would have serious consequences. “We have seen very dire consequences when the rat population increases,” he said. Justice Mehta, in a lighthearted manner, remarked, “Dogs and cats are enemies. Cats kill rats. So, we should increase the number of cats.”
Singh said he was not questioning the orders passed by the Supreme Court and was only requesting the bench to reconsider and modify them. He said, “These dogs should be controlled in the same way that has proven to be the only effective method, that is, sterilization, vaccination, and release back into the area.”
The bench asked, “Tell us, how many dogs should be seen roaming in the corridors, wards, and near the beds of patients in each hospital?” Singh said that the court’s intention in this matter was unequivocal and it had noted that the ABC rules and the orders passed by the courts had not been followed.
He said, “What has concerned you, Your Lordships, and rightly so, is the fact that despite the Animal Birth Control Rules being in place and court orders for their implementation, Your Lordships have found that in a large number of states and several cities, they are not being implemented.”
Venugopal said that there should be no dogs in hospitals and that so far, there has been no political will to implement the statutory rules. He added that there is no budgetary allocation to ensure the implementation of the rules.
Another senior lawyer argued that a census and data on stray dogs are necessary. When a lawyer mentioned the lack of infrastructure, including dog shelters, the bench said, “We are all aware of that.”
The bench asked, “Please tell us, is the mandatory microchipping of pet dogs actually happening?” A lawyer said, “It’s not happening in our country, but can it happen, should it happen? I believe the answer is yes.”
A lawyer mentioned the increasing threat from stray dogs in residential complexes, saying that it is necessary to keep public spaces safe. When the lawyer said that the court was under pressure, Justice Nath said, “We are not under any pressure. You are mistaken.”
He said, “A dog can always sense a person who is afraid of dogs and who has been bitten by a dog, and it will always attack.” Several lawyers also offered suggestions on how to deal with the issue. The hearing will continue on Friday.
