New Delhi: Flagging non-compliances of rules and directions by civic bodies, the Supreme Court Wednesday said that people were dying not only due to dog bites alone in the country but also because of accidents caused by stray animals on roads.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, which was hearing pleas for modification of its earlier orders of the apex court filed by dog lovers and those seeking stringent compliance of orders, said it is conducting the hearing as many lawyers and animal activists claimed that they were not heard before passing of the order November 7.
“The roads should be clear of dogs and stray animals. It is not only the dog bites but also the roaming of stray animals on roads that are proving dangerous and causing accidents. No one knows which dog is in what mood in the morning. Civic bodies have to implement the rules, modules and directions strictly,” the bench said.
Justice Mehta pointed out that two Rajasthan high court judges have suffered accidents in the last 20 days and one of the judges is still suffering from spinal injuries.
“It’s a serious issue,” he told lawyers appearing in the matter.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner seeking modification of the earlier order of the court in the matter, said that the solution is not to capture all dogs but to adopt a scientific formula, accepted worldwide for reducing animal-human conflict.
He submitted that the court can adopt the formula of CSVR (Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate and Release) for managing and controlling the population of stray dogs which will gradually reduce the dog bite incidents.
“Prevention is always better than cure,” Justice Nath said and pointed out that there was nothing much to argue in the matter as the court is only directed to remove the stray dogs from institutional areas and has not interfered with any rules and regulations.
The bench said what it is trying in the matter is the strict enforcement of rules, regulations, modules and standard operating procedures (SOPs) by states and civic bodies.
“Some states have not responded to compliance with our orders and implementation of the arguments. We will be very harsh with those states. All the rules, regulations and SOPs need to be followed,” the top court said.
When some counsels, appearing for different parties, submitted that dog attacks are happening, the bench said that it understands that children and adults are being bitten and losing their lives.
At the outset, senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who has been appointed as amicus curiae in the matter, said that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has prepared an SOP to implement the court order.
“They have identified 1,400 km of road as a vulnerable stretch. However, after detection, the NHAI says that the state governments have to take care of it,” Agarwal said.
The bench suggested fencing the roads and expressways to prevent stray animals from coming onto the roads.
Agarwal submitted that states like Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Punjab are yet to file compliance affidavits while some states have filed very “disappointing” affidavits.
Justice Nath said that the court will deal with those states.
In his arguments, Sibal submitted that the response against this stray dog issue should be reflective of a mature and responsible society.
“First of all, this is not an adversarial issue and we are here as dog lovers. If one tiger is a man-eater, we don’t kill all tigers.
“We must make sure that sterilisation takes place and the population must come down. There is a process for that,” Sibal submitted while pointing to the CSVR model and said it has brought down the dog population in Lucknow to almost zero.
He added that if dogs that have rabies and those that do not have rabies are put in the same shelter, all of them will get rabies.
The bench in a lighter vein said, “The only thing missing is providing counselling to the dogs as well so that he doesn’t bite when released back.”
Similar arguments were made by senior advocates Colin Gonsalves, Anand Grover, C U Singh and some animal rights activists appearing in-person.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for NALSAR, Hyderabad, also made his arguments and highlighted the data on the inadequate number of shelters needed for housing the stray dogs.
The arguments remained inconclusive and would continue on Thursday.
Taking note of the “alarming rise” in dog bite incidents within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the apex court on November 7 last year directed forthwith relocation of stray canines to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.
The bench also said the stray dogs so picked up shall not be released back in the place they were picked up.
It directed the authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from state highways, national highways and expressways.
Recurrence of dog bite incidents within institutional areas, including sports complexes, reflected not only administrative apathy but also a “systemic failure” to secure these premises from preventable hazards, it said.
The top court had passed a slew of directions in the suo motu case over the stray dog matter.
It is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
PTI
