Opinion Supreme Court’s latest order on street dogs is balanced and compassionate, but it still does not address all concerns
For example, what is the definition of the term ‘aggressive dog’? This term has not been defined by the legislature or the courts
Tens of thousands of American dog owners have enrolled their pets in Darwin’s Dogs and similar initiatives. (File photo) By J R Midha
International Dog Day on August 26 witnessed all-round celebrations of the Supreme Court’s August 22 order, which recognised the rights of dogs to live in their natural territories. The Supreme Court’s August 11 order had directed municipal bodies to immediately capture and relocate all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR by sequestering them in pounds. This triggered widespread protests across the country. Consequently, the Chief Justice of India constituted a three-judge bench, which modified the two-judge bench order and directed that stray dogs picked up must be released back in their original territories after sterilisation and immunisation, except for the rabid and aggressive ones. The Supreme Court also mandated the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to designate feeding spaces across the capital.
The two-judge bench had taken cognisance of a newspaper report and passed a drastic order without examining the law (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023) and judicial precedents, according to which stray dogs cannot be relocated. The Bench disregarded the fundamental tenet of law “Audi Alteram Partem” and did not afford any opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders, despite repeated remonstrations. The constitutionality of the Act and the Rules was not even challenged before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the constitution of the three-judge bench by the CJI was a salutary step, considering that similar matters were pending before the Supreme Court, and he clubbed all the matters together.
The latest order is balanced, humane and compassionate, but it does leave out a few concerns raised by the citizens. For example, what is the definition of the term “aggressive dog”, since the apex court says that they can be sequestered to pounds? This term has not been defined by the legislature or the courts. The author offers a few suggestions.
It is well settled that dogs are territorial beings and, therefore, they must be fed in their territory. For this purpose, all dog feeders should make a list of all the strays in their locality, put a name-tagged collar, delineate their territorial bounds, and identify the feeding spots, which should not cause any inconvenience to the locals. The feeders should submit the rough site plan along with the marked territories and suggested feeding areas to the concerned municipal body and the local Animal Welfare Board. After this, the concerned authorities should visit the site to finalise the feeding area in consultation with local residents. Until the designated areas are marked by the authorities, there is no impediment to feeding the dogs in their territories, at a place that should not cause inconvenience to the residents.
With respect to the contentious definition of “aggressive dog”, the author believes that only the dog that bites habitually and without provocation can be termed as such. However, a dog that exhibits natural tendencies such as barking, chasing moving vehicles or defending itself from being hit or abused, will certainly not come under the ambit of this term. For this purpose, it would be advisable for dog feeders to make some daily videos of the strays in their locality and preserve them so that if the aggression issue later arises, it can be decided by looking at their natural daily behaviour. Otherwise, if a peaceful dog is wrongly picked up by the authorities, it would be very difficult for any person to show that the dog was not aggressive. Similarly, the people who complain about a dog being aggressive should also make videos to corroborate their claims.
Finally, people should come forward and adopt stray dogs, which will reduce the stray population. Many countries, including the Netherlands, have successfully reduced stray numbers through widespread adoption initiatives.
We are not the masters of this planet, but mere visitors. So, we have to live in peace with nature and embrace the ancient principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. We have a fundamental duty enshrined in Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, which enjoins “compassion towards all living creatures”.
The writer retired as a judge of the Delhi High Court in 2021. He currently practises as an arbitrator and senior advocate and teaches at NLU Delhi
Share
