Asserting that the right to live with dignity encompasses the right to live freely without threat from dogs, the Supreme Court rejected pleas to recall its earlier directives on the management of stray dogs, including relocation and sterilisation efforts.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria dismissed petitions that challenged the validity of the standard operating procedures (SOPs) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) for handling stray animals.
"The court cannot remain oblivious to harsh ground realities... where children, international travellers, and elderly people have fallen victim to dog bite incidents," the bench said. "The Constitution doesn't envisage a society where children and elderly people are to survive on mercy and physical strength."
"We have given detailed consideration to applications seeking recall of our November 7 judgement," the court said, "(but) we dismiss all the applications."
Describing the continued presence of stray dogs in public places "alarming", the court directed all states, Union Territories and relevant statutory bodies, to improve their infrastructure to address the issue of stray dogs. The bench observed that the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme – a key component of stray dog management – has largely been inconsistent, underfunded, and uneven across different regions.
also read
- Telangana mass dog killing: 500 canines culled in operation to fulfil election promise; 15 booked
- 'Complete failure': SC slams Centre, states on stray dog menace, warns of heavy compensation
- Supreme Court rejects video showdown in stray dogs case; flags public safety, constitutional issues
- ‘Move stray dogs from schools, hospitals to shelters’: SC cracks down on canine menace
The court criticised state governments for having failed to follow earlier instructions. "There has been a discernible absence of efforts to expand and quantify infrastructure in proportion to increasing population of stray dogs. It (the efforts) have remained sporadic... and lacking institutional depth. Sterilisation and vaccination drives took place without planning..."
"This defeats the objects of the (Animal Birth Control) framework," the court said. "Had states acted with foresight, the present situation could not have assumed such proportions."
Reinforcing its earlier stance, the bench reiterated that the right to a dignified life encompasses the right to live free from the threat of dog bites.
Earlier, on January 29, the apex court had reserved its decision on a group of petitions seeking modifications to its November 7 order, which detailed guidelines for the relocation and sterilisation of stray dogs. During that hearing, the court had expressed its dissatisfaction with the compliance efforts of Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu in adhering to its directions.
The court's November 7 order was issued in response to a rise in dog-bite incidents, particularly close to schools, hospitals, and railway stations. The directive mandated the immediate relocation of stray dogs to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination. The court also directed that stray dogs captured should not be returned to their original locations.
In addition to managing stray dogs, the court had also instructed authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from state highways, national highways, and expressways.
This ongoing matter stems from a suo motu case initiated by the Supreme Court on July 28 last year, following media reports highlighting rabies cases, especially among children, caused by stray dog bites in the national capital.