For the past fortnight, Delhi and its suburbs falling under National Capital Region (NCR) have been agog with dog stories. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had on August 11 directed authorities in Delhi-NCR to start picking up stray dogs from all localities “at the earliest” and relocate the animals to dog shelters within eight weeks.
The move was protested by the dog-lovers, who raised much hue and cry. Their ‘cause’ also brought together the warring branches of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s family in support of the dog lovers. Their collective resentment led onto to a prayer before a larger three member bench.
A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, hearing the matter on August 14, observed that “the whole problem of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR was because of inaction of local authorities.” The three judge bench refused to stay the earlier order but modified the judgment in its final order.
The crux of the final order is that the dogs would not be permanently imprisoned in the municipal shelters but released after being vaccinated for rabies and sterilised. However, an exception has been made for dogs which are rabies infected and those behaving aggressively and they would not be released.
Following the reprimand from the two-benches, the municipal bodies have got active and are believed to be building shelters and relocating stray dogs as stipulated in apex court’s first order. Despite apex court order and the visible ‘reprieve’, the raised hackles of the dog lovers refuse to turn calm and protests continue at the dog shelters.
There has been another fallout of the issue. If the statement of the mother of Rajeshbhai Khimjibhai Sakariya, who assaulted Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta at a public hearing, is to be believed, her son was upset with the government on the stray dog issue.
“My son loves dogs. He was angry after the Supreme Court’s order against stray dogs. And left for Delhi soon after,” Sakariya’s mother, Bhanu, is reported to have told reporters.
This incident had another fallout with Commissioner of Delhi Police being sacked in less than 36 hours after the assault. If Sakariya was truly a dog lover and the whole incident had its genesis in action against the stray dogs, he bit the poor top cop real deep.
To be fair to Rekha Gupta, she never took a very ‘strident’ stand against the strays. Though she said that she was bound to follow the directions of the Supreme Court, she also spoke about her government making a ‘humane policy’ in this matter. However, the dog-lovers, berated her for not taking stand against the SC.
On the other hand, those who have suffered from dog-bites, say that it would be mad to expect the Chief Minister of the city to take a stand against the apex court. It was also mad of Sakariya to have assaulted Gupta for her stand on the stray dogs. In a constitutional democracy, can an elected leader openly defy a Supreme Court order?
Gupta’s cautious stance reflects the broader challenge of balancing compassion for animals with the imperative of upholding the law. However, the actions of such activists are best described by the idiom, method in the madness.
The idiom suggests that while something might seem crazy or nonsensical, there is a sensible plan or motivation driving it. The dog lovers, through the aforementioned petitions and also the alleged attack on the Chief Minister are trying the keep alive their cause, which incidentally now has several opponents.
The activists claim that there has been no dog bites rabies death in the national Capital the past 10 years. Does that mean that the dog bites should be taken cognizance of only if deaths occur? Compare this with law when one human being hurts another human being, should it be taken cognizance of only if there is a death.
There are also laws to prevent cruelty against animals. Somebody can be charged under this law of perpetuating cruelty on the animals even if the victim doesn’t die. This legal irony reveals a deeper societal inconsistency: animal rights are often invoked selectively, especially when weighed against human inconvenience or public-health risks. Thus this mad argument of “no rabies deaths”.
The Supreme Court’s firm stand may feel authoritarian to some, but it reflects a long-delayed push to tackle a civic hazard. The challenge for policymakers is to implement the order without losing sight of empathy.
The very idea of removing dogs to shelters run by civic bodies should not be seen as an act of cruelty.
In this emotionally charged arena, the true test of governance will be shaping solutions that takes care of both human safety and animal welfare, finding a method in what for now seem to be madness.