<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to urgently entertain a plea which alleged that Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann had claimed the apex court had given a “free hand” to <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/india/stray-dogs-case-supreme-court-allows-euthanasia-of-rabid-dogs-to-curb-threat-to-human-life-4008301">kill stray dogs</a>.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta told the counsel mentioning the matter, “If a chief minister makes a statement, does that mean we have to change our order?” </p>.'Can't remain oblivious to harsh ground realities': Supreme Court dismisses pleas challenging order on relocation, sterilisation of stray dogs.<p>The bench directed the petitioner to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead.</p><p>The counsel submitted that following the Supreme Court’s May 19 order on stray dogs, the Punjab Chief Minister had stated that the apex court had given a free hand to eliminate stray dogs. </p><p>He further claimed that stray dogs were being killed in the wake of the order, it said.</p><p>“You go to the Punjab and Haryana High Court,” the bench reiterated, adding that it was not entertaining the mentioning. </p><p>The court emphasised the need for strict compliance with its directions in the stray dogs case.</p><p>The bench permitted the counsel to withdraw the application to approach the high court. </p><p>Mann had posted on X (formerly Twitter) in Punjabi last week that following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Punjab government would launch a massive campaign to eliminate stray and “killer” dogs posing a threat to children and passersby. </p><p>He had thanked the Supreme Court for the order.</p><p>On May 19, the Supreme Court permitted euthanasia of rabid, incurably ill, dangerous and aggressive dogs to protect human lives. It observed that the right to live with dignity includes the right to move freely without fear of harm from stray canines.</p><p>The court had ruled that when the safety and lives of human beings are weighed against the interests of animals, the constitutional balance must tilt in favour of preserving human life. </p><p>It also directed states and Union Territories to strengthen infrastructure for dealing with stray dogs and asked all high courts to register suo motu cases to monitor compliance with its earlier directions.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to urgently entertain a plea which alleged that Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann had claimed the apex court had given a “free hand” to <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/india/stray-dogs-case-supreme-court-allows-euthanasia-of-rabid-dogs-to-curb-threat-to-human-life-4008301">kill stray dogs</a>.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta told the counsel mentioning the matter, “If a chief minister makes a statement, does that mean we have to change our order?” </p>.'Can't remain oblivious to harsh ground realities': Supreme Court dismisses pleas challenging order on relocation, sterilisation of stray dogs.<p>The bench directed the petitioner to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead.</p><p>The counsel submitted that following the Supreme Court’s May 19 order on stray dogs, the Punjab Chief Minister had stated that the apex court had given a free hand to eliminate stray dogs. </p><p>He further claimed that stray dogs were being killed in the wake of the order, it said.</p><p>“You go to the Punjab and Haryana High Court,” the bench reiterated, adding that it was not entertaining the mentioning. </p><p>The court emphasised the need for strict compliance with its directions in the stray dogs case.</p><p>The bench permitted the counsel to withdraw the application to approach the high court. </p><p>Mann had posted on X (formerly Twitter) in Punjabi last week that following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Punjab government would launch a massive campaign to eliminate stray and “killer” dogs posing a threat to children and passersby. </p><p>He had thanked the Supreme Court for the order.</p><p>On May 19, the Supreme Court permitted euthanasia of rabid, incurably ill, dangerous and aggressive dogs to protect human lives. It observed that the right to live with dignity includes the right to move freely without fear of harm from stray canines.</p><p>The court had ruled that when the safety and lives of human beings are weighed against the interests of animals, the constitutional balance must tilt in favour of preserving human life. </p><p>It also directed states and Union Territories to strengthen infrastructure for dealing with stray dogs and asked all high courts to register suo motu cases to monitor compliance with its earlier directions.</p>
