Breaking News: Supreme Court Steps In as Stray Dog Crisis Unfolds
In a dramatic development, the Supreme Court has summoned the Chief Secretaries of various States and Union Territories, excluding West Bengal and Telangana, for failing to file affidavits regarding their implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules. This move comes as part of the ongoing case titled "In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pray the Price."
The Battle for Balance: Protecting Citizens and Canines
The Court's decision to intervene stems from a series of incidents and concerns over the rising issue of stray dogs and their impact on public safety. On August 22, the Court directed all States and UTs to submit compliance affidavits, but only a few heeded the call. Today, the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria noted that only West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had filed the required documents.
Accountability and Action
The Court has now directed the Chief Secretaries of the defaulting States and UTs to appear before them next Monday to explain their non-compliance. Justice Vikram Nath expressed his dissatisfaction, stating that the Court's orders were widely reported, yet some States failed to take action. He emphasized the need for a unified approach, saying, "Continuous incidents are happening, and the image of our country is at stake. We cannot ignore the news reports."
A Question of Representation
Interestingly, the Court also noted that there was no representation from the defaulting States during the hearing. Justice Nath specifically addressed the Additional Solicitor General, Archana Pathak Dave, inquiring why the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi had not filed a compliance affidavit. He warned of potential consequences, stating, "Chief Secretary must provide an explanation...or face costs and coercive measures. Notices were issued to all States and UTs. Do your officers not read newspapers or social media? Everyone has reported this. Once aware, they should take responsibility!"
The Evolution of the Case
To understand the context, we must rewind to August 11, when a 2-judge bench initially directed the Delhi government to relocate stray dogs to shelters, barring their release. This order was later extended to Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad. However, the case took an unexpected turn when it was shifted to a 3-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath. Some lawyers argued that the initial directions conflicted with previous orders passed by other benches.
A New Perspective
On August 22, the 3-judge bench stayed the earlier directions, deeming the prohibition on releasing treated and vaccinated dogs as "too harsh." The bench clarified that stray dogs should be released back to their original areas after treatment and vaccination, in accordance with the ABC Rules. Exceptions were made for dogs infected with rabies, suspected rabies cases, and those displaying aggressive behavior.
Expanding the Scope
The Court further expanded the case's scope beyond Delhi-NCR, making it a pan-India issue. All States and UTs, along with Secretaries of Animal Husbandry, local bodies, and municipal corporations, were brought into the matter to ensure compliance with the ABC Rules. The bench also mentioned transferring similar petitions from High Courts to the Supreme Court to formulate a national policy.
And Here's the Controversial Part...
While the Court's intentions are clear, some may argue that the approach to managing stray dogs is too lenient, potentially putting citizens at risk. Others might question the effectiveness of the ABC Rules and whether they provide a comprehensive solution. What do you think? Should the Court's decision be applauded for its humane approach, or is there a need for a stricter policy to ensure public safety? Share your thoughts in the comments!
