Last Updated:
Supreme Court dismisses all pleas in stray dog case, upholds November 25 order to remove strays from schools and hospitals, bans releasing them back
Supreme Court dismissed all pleas in the stray dog case.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to modify its November 25 order directing the removal of stray dogs from institutional areas such as schools, hospitals and other public facilities, while also making it clear that the direction against releasing them back into those areas would remain in force.
Hearing applications challenging the order, the Supreme Court underlined the growing threat posed by stray dog attacks and said the state could not remain a “passive spectator” to the crisis.
Stressing that the right to life with dignity includes the right to live free from the fear of dog attacks, the bench said courts could not remain oblivious to the “harsh ground realities” where children, elderly people and even international travellers have fallen victim to dog bite incidents.
The court observed that the Constitution does not envisage a society where citizens, especially children and senior citizens, survive at the mercy of “physical strength or chance”. The apex court gave this verdict on the stray dog case while dismissing all the pleas submitted.
In a significant observation, the court said authorities should take an “informed and reasoned decision” on extending the directions issued for schools and hospitals to other public places as well, with the objective of ensuring a safe environment for the general public. It added that such decisions must be implemented in a time-bound manner.
‘Inaction On Effective Implementation Of ABC Behind Dog Menace’
The bench stressed that prolonged inaction by authorities had allowed the problem to spiral into alarming proportions.
The court observed a “discernible absence of efforts to expand and quantify infrastructure in proportion to increasing population of stray dogs” and criticised states and local authorities for carrying out sterilisation and vaccination drives without proper planning.
“It defeats the objects of the framework. Had states acted with due foresight, the present situation would not have assumed such alarming proportions,” the court said.
The bench further remarked that the “inaction on effective implementation of ABC framework” had directly contributed to the worsening stray dog menace.
“Prolonged inaction and absence of institutional commitment to effective implementation of ABC Framework has contributed significantly to the persistence as well as aggravation of the problem which has now assumed dimensions warranting urgent and systemic intervention,” the court observed.
Fresh Directions For States, UTs On Stray Dog Management
The Supreme Court also issued fresh directions to states and Union Territories for stricter implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) guidelines. It directed all states and UTs to establish at least one ABC centre in every district with trained doctors to ensure effective sterilisation and vaccination measures.
The court further directed all High Courts across the country to monitor compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions on stray dog management and implementation of the ABC framework.
Taking note of varying population densities, the court said authorities must expand the number of ABC centres wherever required to tackle the growing stray dog population in an effective manner.
The Supreme Court also stressed that all directions issued by it must be implemented “in letter and spirit”, while ensuring strict compliance with AWBI rules and the broader ABC framework.
The bench also directed states and local authorities to ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies medicines amid concerns over rising dog bite cases.
Addressing the issue of stray cattle on highways, the court directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to take time-bound steps to deal with the problem, including deployment of depreciated transport vehicles for handling stray cattle. The NHAI was also asked to establish a monitoring and coordination framework for the purpose.
The court further observed that authorities may take all legally permissible measures, including euthanasia in cases involving rabid or dangerous dogs, to curb threats to human life.
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
