The Supreme Court on Wednesday flagged the increasing number of dog bite incidents in the country and called out the municipal authorities and other local bodies for their failure to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules [In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh].
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria today heard detailed arguments in the suo motu case initiated by the top court on the issue of stray dogs and other animals in public places. The hearing in the matter will continue on Thursday.
"We are conscious that these things are happening. Children, adults are getting bit, people are dying," the Court said today.
The Court also said that, in the past 20 days, there have been two animal-related road accidents involving judges and one judge is in serious condition.
"One of the judges is still suffering through spinal injuries. It’s a very serious issue," it added.
The stray dog matter gained national attention last year after a bench comprising justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs, drawing protests from animal rights groups.
That order was later
modified by the present three-judge bench. It mandated vaccination and release of sterilized dogs instead of permanent sheltering.
The Court had also ordered that government and private educational, health institutions should be fenced within 8 weeks to tackle stray dog menace and prevent stray dog bites.
Stray dogs picked up shall not be released back to the same location from where they were picked up since doing so will defeat the directions issued to regulate the issue in such institutional areas, the Court added then.
Today, amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal informed the Court that the NHAI has prepared a standard operating procedure (SOP) to implement the court order.
"There’s 1,400 odd km of vulnerable stretch. After detecting, the NHAI says that the State government has to take care," Agarwal said.
The Court remarked that the NHAI can take steps to cordon off or fence the roads.
Mr Agarwal further informed the Court infrastructural development is needed to implement the direction for putting the cattle and stray dogs in shelters.
"AWB says male dogs should be sterilised first. So that it takes care of future reproduction. Man power requirement is also there in ABC centres. The States were to file affidavits. I have compiled 10 affidavits received so far," he added.
The Court was told that major states like Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Punjab are yet to file compliance affidavits.
Arguments Today
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing a litigant advocating animal rights, said that the response against the issues involved in the matter should be reflective of a responsible society.
"We are here as dog lovers. If one tiger is a man eater we don’t kill all tigers. We must make sure that sterilisation takes place, the population must come down. There is a process for that. It’s called CSVR model accepted throughout the world. It’s called Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate, Release. It has brought down dog population in states like UP to almost zero. If we have dogs who have rabies and who don’t have rabies in the same shelter, all of them will get rabies," Sibal said.
When Sibal submitted that he has never been bitten on his visits to places like temples, the Court remarked,
"You are lucky. People are being bitten, children are being bitten."
In response, Sibal said,
"We have to live with the animals. If we encroach into their space, they will bite."
During Sibal's submissions, the Court remarked that the "only thing missing is providing counseling to the dogs as well. So that he doesn’t bite when released back".
Sibal said that he understood that the Court's remark was on the lighter side.
The Court then observed that presence of animals on roads was leading to accidents.
"While they are running on the road it is a problem. Roads where there are moving vehicles. It’s just not biting," it said.
When Sibal said dogs are not on roads and they are in compounds, the Court said,
"Are you serious? Your information seems to be outdated. Prevention is always better than cure. The roads have to be clear and cleaned of dogs. They might not bite but they still cause accidents."
Sibal also argued that removal of dogs from their present places is not a solution to the problem.
"People feed dogs in the place that they are. They won’t go to shelter homes. Removal won’t work," he said.
However, the Court remarked that many NGOs can go to the shelters and feed. Sibal responded sharply to the observation.
"If your lordships already have the solutions, there’s no need for me to argue," the senior counsel said.
We are not forcing you, the Court responded.
Sibal then submitted that he was just placing scientific material on record. Continuing with his arguments, Sibal said unscientific removal of dogs from institutional areas would lead to more problems on ground.
"Dogs are highly territorial. Territorial vacuum will soon be filled again. This is not what I say. This is a plan based on experience. Fundamentally our children and people have to be protected. But that doesn’t mean it increases the risk," he said.
Sibal also said that dog bite incidents in areas like Indore have increased after court orders. He also highlighted the economic burden of feeding the dogs.
"The economic burden of feeding dogs is currently taken care by the communities. Corporations won’t do that. Removal of dogs from institutional areas won’t solve the problem. Other dogs will come. There will be lack of food in shelters, there will be dog fights, rabies will increase…," he said.
Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appeared for NALSAR Hyderabad and highlighted the data on number of shelters needed for housing the stray dogs.
"This is the only university in India which has an animal law centre. They also have a masters degree and PG diploma in animal protection. Our investigation has disclosed certain statistics. 15,46,941 are total educational institutions including schools. Taking an average of 10 dogs per institution will be 1.54cr. Total shelters required will be 77,347," he said.
Venugopal also submitted that ABC rules expressly require stray dogs to be returned to places from where they were removed but the earlier court orders do not recognise this fact.
He called for constitution of a committee to examine the issues and implementation of rules
"The Supreme Court cannot ignore a statutory rule until it’s set aside. Let the expert committee report come. The enormity of the problem is such that it requires application of mind. Let all the data may be collected. Dogs cannot be taken away to shelters. They have to be returned to the place from where they were taken," he said.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves argued that there are drastic and irreversible consequences of putting stray dogs in kennels.
"Mass removal of dogs is hazardous. If you have 70% vaccinated, and 30% not vaccinated then those 30% dogs also get the rabies shield. So it’s important to release back vaccinated dogs," he added.
Gonsalves also said that dog lovers should be given the power to assist corporations.
"Dogs must be fed in their locality. You send them out and they will die. They are not like cows who can live in gaushalas," he said.
The senior counsel highlighted the alleged atrocities against stray dogs and those wanting to feed them.
"Women are being stripped, beaten, hounded and harassed for feeding dogs. The raping of dogs by human beings is a very common practice. Under the BNS this has been removed as an offence. In our religious culture, dog has always been the symbol of human-animal love," he said.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover said that certain educational institutions have demonstrated through the years of practice that when sterilized vaccinated dogs remain within their original territories under a structured system or oversight, there are negligible incidents of aggression.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta earlier submitted that Residential Welfare Associations (RWA) of gated communities should decide by voting whether to allow stray animals, particularly dogs inside their areas.
"When we say animal lovers animals include all animals and not just dog. Whether I want to keep a dog in my house or not has to be my discretion. Whether dogs should be roaming around in my gated community, it would be essential for that small community to decide that. Where 90% residents feel that it would be disastrous and 10% insist that dogs remain… somebody may bring buffaloes and say I am an animal lover. There may be difficulties to other members. Let gated communities etc decide by way of votes. We are staying in a democratic setup of RWA," Mehta said.
Senior Advocate CU Singh and other lawyers also made arguments today. A petitioner-in-person argued via VC with a picture showing a senior citizen alleged to have been fatally injured by stray dogs.
