NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the suo motu case pertaining to stray dogs on October 27. According to the causelist published by the apex court, a three-judge special bench, headed by Justice Vikram Nath, and comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, will hear the case on October 27, Monday.
The Supreme Court had in its decision on August 22, suspended its earlier August 11 order and directed that the stray dogs would be released back to the same area, but after proper sterilisation and immunisation, except those infected with rabies or exhibiting aggressive behaviour.
"Feeding of stray dogs at public places is prohibited and appropriate action would be taken against person for doing so. Unregulated feeding is not allowed as it creates problems to common man," said the three-judge bench of the top court.
Stressing the need for better facilities like a helpline to complain against violations in this regard, the top court added that no individual/organisation cannot cause any hindrance in discharge of duties by officers.
The petitioner NGOs are to be paid Rs 25,000 each, and that amount is to be used for the creation of facilities. No further pleadings by them are allowed, the bench added in its order.
The court, increasing the ambit of the case, said that it proposed to expand the scope to all States and UTs, by involving Animal Husbandry departments and Municipal Authorities.
The top court had on August 22 expanded the scope of the stray dogs case beyond the confines of Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) and directed that all states and union territories be made parties in the matter.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and other lawyers appearing for the petitioner NGOs and others, had moved the apex court and sought a direction for staying the August 11 order, saying there were not enough shelter homes to house stray dogs. Sibal had argued that there are ABC (Animal Birth Control) rules and a Parliamentary legislation in this regard.
Questioning the August 11 order, he had asked what the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had done so far. "What have they been doing over the years? Have they built shelter homes? Since they have not sterilised, dog numbers have increased. Since they have no owners, the community is taking care of them," he questioned the inefficiency of the MCD.
Sibal had also remarked, "Where are the shelters? Where are the pounds? They will be culled. So the August 11 order should be stayed on an interim basis."
Abishel Manu Singhvi, senior lawyer for one of the petitioners, had also agreed on the contentions of Sibal and said the apex court's order ignored previous directions against en masse picking up stray dogs.
After the August 11 order, there was outrage among dog-lovers against the verdict, citing the fact that there was a mention against this order, and so the CJI constituted a three-judge bench to decide the matter.
Lawyer Nanita Sharma, appearing for an NGO, had mentioned the matter before the bench of the top court, led by the CJI B R Gavai, that two benches of the apex court had earlier passed different and conflicting orders on the stray dogs issue and thereby the court should hear the matter and clarify the confusion.
The court also ordered that animal lovers and NGOs petitioning the court must deposit Rs 25,000 and Rs 2 lakh, respectively, which will be used to improve infrastructure and facilities for stray dogs.
"Citizens can apply to municipal bodies to adopt stray dogs, which will then be tagged and monitored. Adopted dogs must not be returned to the streets," the top court added.
The municipal authorities are required to file affidavits detailing compliance with ABC rules, including available resources like dog-catching personnel, cages, and shelters.
"Municipal authorities must maintain records of stray dogs captured, housed, sterilised, and released, and report progress regularly to the Court," it added.
The top court had in its August 14 hearing, observed that "The government did nothing. The local authorities do nothing. Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. They should be here taking responsibility. Everyone who has come here to file intervention should take responsibility," said the bench of the apex court.
The Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, senior law officer appearing for the Delhi government, had earlier in the hearing on August 14, presented data to the court citing that around 37 lakh dog bites happened every year, which roughly amounts to an average of about 10,000 dog bites every day. He also submitted that as per the World Health Organisation statistics, 20,000 rabies deaths happen every year.
Mehta also had highlited that children were unable to play outside due to stray dogs. He submitted that even if the dogs are immunised, that won't stop them from mutilating children. He pointed out that nobody is saying to kill dogs. They need to be separated for the safety of people.
The court earlier had also slammed the MCD and observed that this was happening because of the inaction of the Municipal Corporations.
"Parliament frames rules and laws, but these are not implemented. On one hand, humans are suffering and on the other hand, the animal lovers are here. Have some responsibility. All those who have filed interventions have to file affidavits and furnish evidence," said the bench. It had earlier asked all the intervenors -- who had questioned the August 11 order -- to file an affidavit.
