NewKerala.com

Key Points

The Supreme Court modified its earlier order to allow sterilised stray dogs to return to their original neighborhoods. Animal activist Ambika Shukla welcomed this decision but highlighted implementation failures in the ABC program. The court now requires dedicated feeding zones instead of street feeding and separate shelters for aggressive dogs. Shukla also requested the court review a clause requiring justice seekers to pay fees.

Key Points: Ambika Shukla Backs SC Stray Dog Sterilisation Not Roundup Order

  • SC allows sterilised stray dogs release back to original areas
  • Court prohibits street feeding, mandates dedicated feeding zones
  • Rabid or aggressive dogs must be kept in separate shelters
  • Shukla requests SC review of justice seekers payment clause
2 min read

Failure here is in the implementation: Animal Activist Ambika Shukla supports SC's modified order on stray dogs

Animal activist Ambika Shukla supports Supreme Court's modified stray dog order, citing ABC program implementation failures while welcoming sterilisation policy.

"The dogs are not at fault in this case. The failure here is in the implementation by ABC. - Ambika Shukla"

New Delhi, August 23

Animal Rights Activist Ambika Shukla supported Supreme Court's modified decision on stray dogs and pointed out the failure of Animal Birth Control (ABC) program.

The Supreme Court on Friday modified its previous August 11 order, which had directed the rounding up of all stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR and prohibited their release from dog shelters. The court now allows the release of stray dogs back to the same area after sterilisation and immunisation.

Shukla said that the animal civil authorities, health experts, animal welfarists, and animal behaviourists should work together so that the ABC program can run smoothly.

"We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court. The dogs are not at fault in this case. The failure here is in the implementation by ABC. Now, civil authorities, health experts, animal welfarists, and animal behaviourists should work together so that this programme runs smoothly. But there is a problem in this Supreme Court order, as they have asked people who raised their voice for justice to pay... I request the Supreme Court to look into this order," Ambika Shukla told ANI.

A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria ruled that stray dogs must be released after sterilisation and immunisation, except those infected with rabies or exhibiting aggressive behaviour.

The court said that infected stray dogs shall be sterilised and immunised, but under no circumstances shall they be released back into the streets, and as far as possible, they shall be kept in separate shelters or pounds after sterilisation and immunisation.

"The dogs that are picked up shall be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated, and released back to the same area from where they were picked up," it said while modifying the August 11 order, which directed that stray dogs shall not be released.

The bench also restricted public feeding of stray dogs and directed the MCD to create dedicated feeding spaces in each municipal ward.

"Under no condition shall the feeding of stray dogs on the streets be permitted. Dedicated feeding spaces of stray dogs to be created. There have been instances due to such feeding instances," said the bench.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rohit P
Good decision but who will monitor the implementation? Our municipal corporations have terrible track records with animal welfare programs. Need proper accountability mechanisms.
A
Arjun K
As someone who was bitten by a stray last year, I appreciate the court's balanced approach. Rabid and aggressive dogs should not be released back. Public safety matters too!
S
Sarah B
The dedicated feeding spaces idea is brilliant! This addresses both animal welfare and public safety concerns. No more random feeding causing problems in residential areas 🐕
V
Vikram M
Why should citizens who raised genuine concerns about dog attacks have to pay? That part of the order seems unfair. The court should reconsider this aspect.
M
Meera T
This is a practical solution that considers both human and animal welfare. Hope the municipalities actually implement this properly with adequate funding and monitoring.

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

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50