The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that people have a right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to move freely in public spaces without constant fear of dog bites.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria made the observation while issuing a slew of directions to curb stray dog attacks on people.

"The right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack or exposure to life threatening events, such as dog bites in public areas,” the Court said.

Below are other major observations made by the top court today:

• The State cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate in the face of statutory mechanisms, specifically designed to address them. The State and Union Territories are under a continuing constitutional obligation to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• Such obligation necessarily extends to the creation, augmentation, and sustained maintenance of adequate infrastructure, or effective implementation of the ABC framework, including sterilisation, vaccination, sheltering and overall scientific management of stray dogs. 

• The Court also cannot remain oblivious to the harsh and deeply disturbing ground realities emerging from various parts of the country, where young children have been mauled, elderly persons have been attacked, ordinary citizens have been left vulnerable in public spaces, and even international travellers have fallen victim to such incidents.
  

• The Constitution of India does not envisage a society where children, elderly persons, and vulnerable citizens are compelled to survive at the mercy of physical strength, chance or circumstance owing to the failure of the State machinery, to discharge its constitutional and statutory obligations. 

• Despite the passage of more than two decades [since introduction of ABC rules], there has been a discernable absence of sustained, systematic, and incremental efforts on part of the State, and the Union Territories to expand and fortify the requisite infrastructure in proportion to the steadily increasing population of the stray dogs.

• The failure to adopt such a proactive, structured and sustained approach has therefore resulted in a largely reactive and crisis-driven response, necessitated by the escalation of the problem, rather than its prevention. Such an approach is neither efficient nor capable of yielding durable resolutions, particularly in a matter involved in public health, human safety, and ecological balance. 

• The prolonged inaction coupled with the absence of institutional commitment to the effective implementation of the ABC framework has contributed significantly to the persistence as well as the aggravation of the problem, which has now assumed dimensions warranting urgent and systemic intervention.

• The reports brought to the notice of this Court reveal that the magnitude of the problem and the resultant threat posed to the public safety has assumed deeply disturbing proportions. 
  

• The harm caused by such incidents is not merely statistical in nature, but has grave human, societal and public health consequences.