<p>The Supreme Court's directive to the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) authorities to round up all stray dogs and place them in shelters at the earliest is judicial overreach and goes against past court rulings and existing laws. </p><p>The ruling comes from a mindset that considers the earth to exist solely for the convenience of human beings. Laws such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, govern our treatment of animals and pets. They strike a balance between our welfare and the rights of animals. </p><p>Civic authorities have the responsibility to implement the provisions related to sterilisation, vaccination etc. It is their failure that has resulted in the increase in the number of stray dogs – the dogs should not be made to pay for the failure of the authorities.</p>.Janhvi Kapoor to Varun Dhawan: Celebs criticise SC’s dog shelter directive.<p>The harsh judgement, issued by the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, said no sentiment should be involved in the matter as animal lovers and activists cannot bring back the children who die of dog bites. But it is the Court’s decision which is short on logic and legal grounding. It did not hear the resident welfare associations and animal welfare groups before passing its order. </p><p>The government, represented by the Solicitor-General, also took a hardline position and had the order, which was initially confined to Delhi, extended to the entire NCR. But the government had told parliament in April that intensive implementation of ABC is the “only rational, scientific solution” to control dog populations. </p><p>The Supreme Court has in the past upheld the ABC Rules, ordered feeding of dogs, and banned their relocation. The latest judgement goes against these positions. The Court has also warned that any resistance to the implementation of the order would attract contempt proceedings.</p>.<p>There are about 10 lakh dogs on Delhi’s streets. Shelters to be built to house them will involve expenditure of crores of rupees in terms of cost of land, construction, and wages of staff. Even if they are constructed, these camps are likely to operate like concentration camps for the dogs. </p><p>The vacuum left on the streets will be filled by unsterilised and unvaccinated dogs from neighbouring states. Will these dogs be stopped at the borders or be taken to the shelters? Dog bites are increasing, according to available statistics, but this order is not the solution to the problem. This is the Final Solution which is legally dubious, impractical, touched by judicial arrogance, and inhuman. It should be reviewed.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court's directive to the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) authorities to round up all stray dogs and place them in shelters at the earliest is judicial overreach and goes against past court rulings and existing laws. </p><p>The ruling comes from a mindset that considers the earth to exist solely for the convenience of human beings. Laws such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, govern our treatment of animals and pets. They strike a balance between our welfare and the rights of animals. </p><p>Civic authorities have the responsibility to implement the provisions related to sterilisation, vaccination etc. It is their failure that has resulted in the increase in the number of stray dogs – the dogs should not be made to pay for the failure of the authorities.</p>.Janhvi Kapoor to Varun Dhawan: Celebs criticise SC’s dog shelter directive.<p>The harsh judgement, issued by the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, said no sentiment should be involved in the matter as animal lovers and activists cannot bring back the children who die of dog bites. But it is the Court’s decision which is short on logic and legal grounding. It did not hear the resident welfare associations and animal welfare groups before passing its order. </p><p>The government, represented by the Solicitor-General, also took a hardline position and had the order, which was initially confined to Delhi, extended to the entire NCR. But the government had told parliament in April that intensive implementation of ABC is the “only rational, scientific solution” to control dog populations. </p><p>The Supreme Court has in the past upheld the ABC Rules, ordered feeding of dogs, and banned their relocation. The latest judgement goes against these positions. The Court has also warned that any resistance to the implementation of the order would attract contempt proceedings.</p>.<p>There are about 10 lakh dogs on Delhi’s streets. Shelters to be built to house them will involve expenditure of crores of rupees in terms of cost of land, construction, and wages of staff. Even if they are constructed, these camps are likely to operate like concentration camps for the dogs. </p><p>The vacuum left on the streets will be filled by unsterilised and unvaccinated dogs from neighbouring states. Will these dogs be stopped at the borders or be taken to the shelters? Dog bites are increasing, according to available statistics, but this order is not the solution to the problem. This is the Final Solution which is legally dubious, impractical, touched by judicial arrogance, and inhuman. It should be reviewed.</p>
