The Supreme Court’s recent order on stray dogs and cattle has rightly drawn attention—and the court’s ire—to the lethargy of states, Union territories and local bodies in implementing Centre’s animal birth control (ABC) policy, more than 20 years after its adoption. By invoking the right to life, the SC has raised the stakes for states and local bodies that have allowed the stray dog situation to reach a crisis point. The court also permitted euthanasia for rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous stray dogs, citing the need to protect human life and public safety. In an issue too often framed as dog lovers versus members of the public, the court rightly places accountability on state agencies and warns of action for failure to comply with its directions. These agencies cannot hide behind questions about the practicality of the court’s directions when they have failed to consistently implement basic aspects of the ABC policy at a meaningful scale.
The policy requires local bodies to humanely catch stray dogs, neuter or spay and immunise them before releasing them in the same locality. However, it is on this last aspect that the court differs, insisting that the animals be relocated from institutional spaces to shelters. Critics questioned the practicality of this direction, citing the resources of space, manpower and funds that would be required to humanely house large numbers of dogs throughout their lives in shelters. The court dismissed these concerns in its latest order, while expressing dismay that, even after the issue had reached the highest court, states had done little to scale up efforts or begin building the necessary infrastructure. That failure, in itself, highlights the magnitude of the problem faced by the public.
There may still be practical difficulties in implementing the court’s directions regarding the sheltering of all relocated strays—especially given the ABC’s standard of procedure, which allows the definition of institutional spaces to be expanded—but state agencies must make a start. It is fallacious to reduce the issue to dog life versus human life when both can be protected if the matter is sufficiently prioritised. That requires allocation of funds, monitoring of their utilisation and effective sterilisation and immunisation of animals undertaken in mission mode. The SC has delegated state-wise monitoring to the high courts. It is well past time for states to get their act together.
