A stray dog at SC premises in Delhi.
Credit: PTI Photo
The latest order by the Supreme Court on stray dogs is unrealistic and inhuman, and marks a regressive slide from its previous ruling on the matter. A three-judge bench has directed states and Union Territories to ensure that all stray dogs are removed from public spaces and relocated to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination. Earlier, this bench had modified the Court’s draconian August 11 order and said dogs on the streets should be vaccinated, sterilised, and released back into their localities. It had been ordered that only dogs with rabies or those showing aggressive behaviour should be kept in shelters. This approach, too, had gaps in implementation, but was more realistic and compassionate than the previous directive to round up all dogs and permanently place them in shelters.
No government or civic body in the country has the resources and manpower to pick up all the dogs on the streets and ensure that they are removed from public spaces. Hundreds of crores of rupees will be needed to make all railway stations, bus stands, schools, etc., “stray dog-proof”. It will also require thousands of trained personnel. How is it possible to keep the dogs off the highways? Dogs from other areas will replace the ones that are taken away. Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, provide for effective and humane management of stray animals through sterilisation and vaccination. If the dogs are a threat to human health or life, it is because of poor implementation of the Rules. Officials have been apathetic, and a shortage of funds has consistently hindered progress. In the absence of the resources to implement the judgement, the authorities are likely to turn to a default alternative – mass killing of dogs.
The order of the apex court does not agree with the existing ABC Rules. It can even be considered as being against the spirit of the Constitution, which recognises the sanctity of animal life, and says it is the duty of the citizens to protect animals and treat them with dignity. The Court has said in the past that Article 21, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life; life, here, means all life and includes animals. The judgement goes against this idea. It rises from the faulty notion that the earth belongs to humans and all other creatures are subordinate to them. The planet belongs as much to other living beings as to humans. Unfortunately, even the highest judiciary of the country does not apply the wisdom to acknowledge and uphold this truth.