‘Not personal… dogs should not face any cruelty at shelters’: Here’s what the Supreme Court order says
The court stressed that its directions in the matter are "not personal" and are "both in the interest of humans as well as dogs”. The August 11 order was uploaded on the SC website on Wednesday evening.
5 min read
The SC stressed that the directions are both in the interest of humans as well as dogs. (Photo: Abhinav Saha)Maintaining that it was concerned about the well being of stray dogs as well, the Supreme Court – in its August 11 order that asked authorities in Delhi-NCR to shift stray dogs from streets to shelters within eight weeks – has directed that “at no stage should” the canines “be subjected to any mistreatment, cruelty or deplorable standards of care” in the shelter.
The court stressed that its directions in the matter are “not personal” and are “both in the interest of humans as well as dogs”. The August 11 order was uploaded on the SC website on Wednesday evening.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, “Judiciary must not assume or take on the colouration of the prevailing popular sentiments of the time, for its role is not to echo the passions of the moment but to uphold the enduring principles of justice, conscience and equity.”
It added that “as the sentinel on the qui vive, a guardian of rights, the judiciary bears the solemn responsibility to possess the courage and the strength to remind the people of truths that they may not like or prefer not to hear.” It said that “the idea behind co-existence is not the existence of one’s life at the cost of the other”.
“The burning issue that we have embarked upon is not driven by a momentary impulse. On the contrary, it is only after the deepest of deliberations, and having reached the firm conclusion about the systematic failure of the concerned authorities over the past two decades to address an issue that strikes at the heart of public safety, that we have decided to take the matter in our hands,” the order stated.
The SC said that over a considerable period of time, the SC has “reflected upon a disturbing pattern of dog bites”.
“…If we fail to act with urgency, we risk allowing yet another two decades to slip into the ledger of neglect, leaving future generations to inherit the same problems and the same dangers,” it added.
Maintaining that “streets should not prove to be vulnerable places”, the SC said, “…we are at pains to take cognizance of the experiences of visually impaired persons, young children, elderly persons, people from humble background who are not able to afford even a day’s meal, let alone the medical expenses. The visually impaired persons are at the highest risk of dog bites as their primary support, their canes, are seen as threats by dogs. Young children are susceptible to dog bites due to which parents find it very difficult to allow their children to navigate on streets on their own.”
It added, “We have come across concerns of elderly persons being attacked by rambunctious dogs. We are not casting aspersions, but there is no way one can identify or classify between a rabies-carrying dog and others. More particularly, the situation is worse when it comes to persons who are forced to sleep on the streets…”
The court said it is “mindful” that the exercise of rounding up and relocation of stray dogs in shelters and pounds carries concerns over their well-being. “We are sympathetic to their lives as well”.
The order stated that “at no stage should these dogs be subjected to any mistreatment, cruelty or deplorable standards of care”. It further said that there should be no overcrowding at dog shelters/pounds. “The stray dogs brought to these shelters/pounds shall not be starved, and it shall be the duty of the concerned officials/authorities to ensure that they are adequately and regularly fed. The stray dogs… shall at no point be left completely unmonitored… the concerned authorities must ensure that at least two responsible personnels are present at the shelter/pound at all times…”
It added that timely medical care should be provided by trained veterinarians to all stray dogs, and the vulnerable and weak dogs should be accommodated separately within the shelter/pound.
Advising those who sought to oppose relocation of the strays “to adopt and give dogs a shelter in their homes”, the SC said, “However, we do not ascribe to the virtue signalling of all those who share love and concern for the animals. A virtual divide is being attempted to be created between animal lovers and persons indifferent towards animals. But the heart of the problem remains unanswered… As a court, our heart pains equally for everyone. We condemn those who beneath the cloak of love and care for the voiceless, pursue the warmth of self-congratulation. The directions given by us, as a court which functions for the welfare of the people, are both in the interest of humans as well as dogs. This is not personal.”
Maintaining that “it would be open to the concerned authorities to decide the viability of implementing an adoption scheme”, it added, “However, any such adoption must take place only after a careful consideration, and in terms of the Standard Protocol for Adoption of Community Animals dated 17.05.2022 issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India, and any other condition that the concerned authorities find necessary to impose… to ensure that the entire exercise envisaged by us is not defeated.”
It further said, “At the cost of repetition, we make it clear that no such adoption, if any, should result in the re-release of a stray dog back on to the streets.”
You May Like
