Supreme Court Takes Stern View on Stray Dog Menace, Warns States

The Supreme Court will continue hearing a suo motu case on stray dog management, expressing deep concern over increasing bite incidents and fatalities. The bench warned of harsh action against states that have not filed compliance affidavits regarding Animal Birth Control Rules. The hearing featured arguments between advocates for sustainable sterilisation solutions and the court's emphasis on keeping institutional premises free of strays. The Solicitor General suggested local communities should vote on permitting strays within gated premises.

Key Points: SC Hearing on Stray Dog Menace, Warns States on Compliance

  • Concern over rising dog bites and fatalities
  • Scrutiny of state compliance on ABC Rules
  • Debate on sterilisation vs. removal
  • SOP for vulnerable highways identified
3 min read

SC to continue hearing on stray dog menace case today

Supreme Court expresses alarm over rising dog bites and accidents, questions state compliance on Animal Birth Control rules, and debates sustainable solutions.

"We will be harsh on states which have not responded. - Supreme Court Bench"

New Delhi, Jan 8

The Supreme Court will continue the hearing on the stray dogs case on Thursday and is likely to further examine the matter, as well as the status of compliance by states and union territories.

Earlier on Wednesday, the apex court expressed concern over the alarming rise in dog bite incidents across the country and the failure of municipal authorities and local bodies to effectively implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria, hearing the suo motu case on stray dog management in public spaces, observed that both children and adults were being bitten and that lives were being lost due to continued inaction.

"We are conscious that these things are happening. Children and adults are getting bitten, people are dying," the Justice Nath-led Bench remarked, adding that in the last 20 days alone, two judges had been involved in animal-related road accidents.

The apex court said the presence of stray animals on roads was not just a biting issue but also a major cause of accidents.

"While they are running on the road, it is a problem. Roads where there are moving vehicles. It's just not biting," it observed.

Gaurav Agarwal, a senior advocate and amicus curiae, informed the bench led by Justice Nath that, following the Supreme Court's earlier directives, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and identified approximately 1,400 kilometres of vulnerable highway segments.

However, he pointed out that implementation would require coordinated action by state governments, including the creation of shelters and manpower for ABC centres.

The amicus also informed the court that several major states, including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Punjab, were yet to file compliance affidavits.

The Justice Nath-led Bench warned that the Supreme Court would take a strict view of non-compliance.

"We will be harsh on states which have not responded," it said.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing animal welfare groups, argued that controlling the population through sterilisation and vaccination is the only sustainable solution. He warned that the indiscriminate removal of dogs from their territories could worsen the problem.

Referring to the globally accepted CSVR (Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate and Release) model, Sibal said unscientific relocation could lead to territorial vacuum, dog fights and increased spread of rabies.

When Sibal stated that people needed to "live with animals", the top court responded sharply. "You are lucky. People are being bitten, children are being bitten," the Justice Nath-led Bench said, stressing that institutional premises such as courts, schools and hospitals stood on a different footing and must remain free of stray animals.

The apex court questioned how dogs could be allowed in places meant for unhindered access by children, patients and persons with disabilities.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the authorities, suggested that residents' welfare associations of gated communities should be allowed to decide by voting whether stray animals may be permitted within their premises, adding that compassion for animals could not override the rights and safety of residents.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rohit P
It's a complex issue. While safety is paramount, Mr. Sibal has a point about the CSVR model. Indiscriminate culling or relocation creates a vacuum and new, unsterilized dogs move in. We need scientific, sustained ABC drives, not knee-jerk reactions.
A
Aman W
The SG's suggestion about RWAs voting is practical for gated communities. In our society, we have managed strays humanely with community-funded sterilization. But public roads, hospitals, and schools must be kept clear. Balance is key.
S
Sarah B
The court is right to be harsh. If major states like UP and MP haven't even filed compliance reports, it shows sheer apathy. This is a public health and safety crisis. Where are our local taxes going if not for basic civic management?
K
Karthik V
Compassion is important, but so is human life. The "live with animals" argument falls flat when you see news of toddlers being mauled. We need effective implementation, not just SOPs on paper. Hope the SC monitoring brings real change.
N
Nikhil C
A respectful criticism: The court's sharp response, while understandable, should not sideline the scientific approach. Sterilization and vaccination *are* the only long-term solutions. The anger should be directed at municipal inaction, not at the method itself. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50