‘Dogs Can Smell Fear’: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Orders in Stray Dogs Case
Background of the Suo Motu Proceedings
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a suo motu case initiated on July 28 last year following media reports highlighting a sharp rise in stray dog bites and rabies cases, particularly affecting children in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The proceedings stem from public health concerns and the apparent failure of authorities to effectively implement existing statutory mechanisms for stray dog management.
Constitution of the Special Bench
A three-judge special bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N V Anjaria is hearing the matter. The hearing on Thursday remained inconclusive and has been scheduled to continue on Friday, indicating the complexity of balancing public safety, animal welfare, and statutory compliance.
Supreme Court’s Clarification on Removal of Stray Dogs
The Supreme Court categorically clarified that it has not directed the removal of all stray dogs from public streets. Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the Court’s direction was limited to ensuring that stray dogs are treated strictly in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
The Court rejected the interpretation that it had ordered a blanket removal, emphasising regulatory compliance rather than displacement.
Observation: ‘Dogs Can Smell Fear’
During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath made a significant observation, stating that dogs can smell humans who are afraid or who have previously suffered dog bites and may attack such individuals. The Court was responding to arguments concerning unpredictability of canine behaviour in public spaces and the consequent safety risks for pedestrians.
Nature of Petitions Before the Court
The bench was hearing multiple pleas, including:
Applications filed by dog lovers and animal welfare groups seeking modification of earlier orders
Petitions seeking strict enforcement of court directions and statutory rules
Submissions highlighting public safety concerns in residential complexes and hospitals
The Court allowed extensive arguments from all stakeholders to ensure a comprehensive adjudication.
Submissions by Senior Advocates
A battery of senior advocates appeared before the Court, including C U Singh, Krishnan Venugopal, Dhruv Mehta, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shyam Divan, Sidharth Luthra, and Karuna Nundy, reflecting the national importance of the issue.
Rodent Menace and Ecological Balance Argument
Senior Advocate C U Singh argued that cities like Delhi face a rodent menace, along with unique challenges such as monkey populations. He contended that the abrupt removal of stray dogs would disturb ecological balance, leading to an increase in rodents with potentially disastrous public health consequences.
Justice Mehta responded by observing that cats naturally control rodents, remarking that promoting cats could also be a solution, while acknowledging the argument’s ecological dimension.
Sterilisation, Vaccination and Re-Release Model
Advocate C U Singh clarified that the petitioners were not challenging the Court’s authority but were requesting modification of earlier directions to ensure that stray dogs are managed through:
Sterilisation
Anti-rabies vaccination
Re-release in their original territory
This model is the cornerstone of the Animal Birth Control Rules.
Hospital Safety and Public Spaces
The bench raised serious concerns regarding the presence of dogs in hospitals. Justice Mehta questioned how many dogs should be allowed to roam in hospital corridors, wards, and near patient beds, underlining the conflict between animal welfare and patient safety.
Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal stated that dogs cannot be allowed in hospitals and pointed out that there has been no real will to implement statutory rules, compounded by the absence of budgetary allocation for enforcement.
Non-Implementation of ABC Rules Highlighted
Advocate C U Singh emphasised that what alarmed the Court was the systemic failure of states and urban bodies to implement the Animal Birth Control Rules, despite these rules being in force and despite repeated judicial directions.
The Court acknowledged that lack of infrastructure, shelters, and data has contributed to ineffective implementation.
Census, Data and Micro-Chipping Issues
Several advocates stressed the need for a nationwide census of stray dogs. The bench questioned whether mandatory micro-chipping of pet dogs, as required under existing rules, is actually being enforced, and whether such regulation should be strengthened.
The Court indicated that data-driven governance is essential for resolving the issue sustainably.
Supreme Court Rejects Allegation of External Pressure
When one counsel suggested that the Supreme Court appeared to be under pressure, Justice Vikram Nath firmly rejected the claim, stating that the Court was under no pressure and was acting purely in the interest of law, public safety, and constitutional duty.
Offences Involving Pet Dogs
The bench also observed that even unintentional attacks by pet dogs on neighbours can constitute an offence, particularly where negligence of the owner is involved. Reference was made to a recent case where a pet dog was deliberately unleashed on another person.
Media Report on Wildlife Impact in Ladakh
Towards the end of the hearing, Justice Mehta referred to a media report concerning stray dogs hunting a rare species in Ladakh. The bench directed all counsels to review the report and come prepared to address its implications at the next hearing.
Statutory Framework Governing the Issue
The case primarily involves the interpretation and enforcement of:
Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (and earlier versions)
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
Municipal laws governing public health and sanitation
Disaster Management and public safety regulations (where applicable)
These statutes mandate sterilisation, vaccination, territorial re-release, and responsible pet ownership.
Constitutional Provisions Involved
The proceedings engage important constitutional principles, including:
Article 21 — Right to life, encompassing public health and safety
Article 48A — State’s duty to protect environment and wildlife
Article 51A(g) — Fundamental duty to show compassion to living creatures
The Court is balancing human safety and dignity with constitutional compassion towards animals.
Key Judicial Precedents on Stray Dog Management
Relevant precedents include:
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) — Recognised animal welfare as part of constitutional morality
People for Elimination of Stray Troubles v. State of Goa (2023) — Emphasised implementation of ABC Rules
Dr. Maya Chablani v. Radha Mittal (Delhi HC) — Highlighted municipal responsibility in stray dog control
These rulings underline that humane regulation, not eradication, is the lawful approach.
Conclusion: Regulation, Not Removal, Is the Supreme Court’s Focus
The Supreme Court has made it clear that the issue is not about removing stray dogs indiscriminately, but about enforcing existing statutory rules effectively. The case reflects a broader governance failure rather than a legal vacuum.
As the hearing continues, the Court is expected to lay down clear, enforceable directions balancing:
public safety
animal welfare
ecological considerations
constitutional duties
The final outcome may shape India’s national policy on stray animal management for years to come.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment