Stray dogs case: LIVE UPDATES from Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is hearing the case concerning stray dogs in India. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria is hearing the matter.

The matter gained national attention last year after a Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs, drawing protests from animal rights groups.

That order was later modified by the present three-judge bench. It mandated vaccination and release of sterilized dogs instead of permanent sheltering.

During yesterday's hearing, the Court flagged the increasing number of dog bite incidents in the country and called out the municipal authorities and other local bodies for their failure to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules.

Track this page for live updates from the hearing today.

Hearing Starts

Amicus Gaurav Agarwal: The 4 remaining states mentioned yesterday have filed their compliances last night. So between yesterday's note and today's note, sixteen states are done, seven are left. I would need one more day to complete that tabular chart.

Senior Advocate CU Singh resumes his arguments.

CU Singh: Apart from the vacuum effect etc mentioned yesterday, there is also a rodent menace. There’s also a problem of monkeys in institutional areas. We have annexed studies. When there is an abrupt removal of dogs, rodent populations shoot up and lead to unintended consequences. There has to be a balance. Your lordships know what happened in Surat 20-30 years ago.

Court: Did that have anything to do with removal of dogs? On a lighter note, dogs and cats are enemies. Cats kill rodents so we should promote more cats and less dogs. That would be the solution. Tell us how many dogs you want roaming around in hospital corridors?

CU Singh: I’m not here to confront your lordships. There might be unintended consequences of removing dogs. What has been proved to have work are the ABC rules when properly implemented.

Court: So it all ultimately comes down to ABC rules and CSVR what Mr. Sibal said yesterday.

CU Singh: Yes. When dogs are taken and put in shelters in a congested environment in shelters that leads to the spread of other diseases.

CU Singh: Despite court orders and ABC rules a large number of states and cities do not have proper implementation. Just because there have been violations of rules should not result in jettisoning the rules.

CU Singh concludes his arguments.

Counsel: If 26,800 crores is available should it not go to housing humans than housing dogs? 91,800 new shelters would have to be constructed. The 7 November order said all municipalities have to follow ABC rules with respect to street dogs. There is no budgetary allocation by central and state governments to ensure implementation of the rules.

Counsel: There should be a 60:40 allocation of budget between centre and states. We also need an institutional mechanism for fund management and implementation. It can follow the SNA Sparsh model.

Counsel: Under ABC rules only 66 animal birth control centres have been accredited. In order to ensure population control we would need to multiply this by a huge number. There’s a critical lack of man power to even operate the existing centres.

Counsel: In MK Ranjitsinh, Justice Narasimha said CSR funds could be used for the environment. I suggest that the same funds could be used for animal birth control as well.

Counsel: States are authorising unqualified people to carry out the sterilisation. The SOP should be reconstructed as per the rules. The states may be directed to place data as Mr. Venugopal had pointed out yesterday.

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta: The rules contemplate that unless there is housing capacity, dogs cannot be captured. Because if the capacity is not there, where do you keep them? Unless we know the numbers, I don’t think the necessary data is there to know what’s the capacity available.

Dhruv Mehta: It would be necessary to have a look at the existing infrastructure and Human Resources available with the municipal authorities. I’m not asking for modification of the order, it may be kept in abeyance till the relevant data is available.

Dhruv Mehta points to a letter from the UGC.

Dhruv Mehta: UGC contemplates the establishment of animal welfare societies for institutions for protection and welfare of animals.

Dhruv Mehta concludes his arguments.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan begins his arguments.

Sankarnarayanan: 2(n) of ABC rules deals with the module that has to be followed with respect to stray dogs. Our fundamental argument is please follow the ABC rules and the module. We are looking now at the confines of what the order has laid down. With reference to institutions, the SOP which has come from AWB on November 27, deals with shelters and management with watchmen, veterinary care etc as the first step. Second is identification of institutions. Removal and sterilisation and vaccination is the last of the steps. The respective states have to identify. Identification, census of dogs, number of shelters etc have to be considered.

Sankarnarayanan: The one state which seems to have a lot of the data in place is Karnataka. The compliance with ABC rules has still not taken place. I say this as a counsel. In the 22nd August Order, direction ‘g’, my slight reservation is that each dog lover and individual shall deposit sums that have been mentioned. I feel a slight misgiving, people feel hesitant and feel that there is a commercial barrier to approach the court. We can still see the court crowded. So it may be removed.

Court: If we had not put that then we would have to setup a pandal here. In fact we think the amount was on the lower side.

Sankarnarayanan ends his submissions.

Senior Advocate Vinay Navare: Everything has to be happen within the ABC framework. There’s lack of implementation of what already exists. Insofar as rules are concerned, release of dogs is contemplated. But there is one observation by this court which runs contrary to that. There has to be a positive framework of suggestions. Today we are in Jan, 31st March is the deadline within which budgets are prepared and presented. This is the time when the budgetary issues can actually be addressed.

Vinay Navare: The most crucial agency is the local body. It starts from village panchayat. How they can be involved etc. their budgetary provisions etc. once some directions are laid, implementation at Pan India level may not be practical. Some plan must be made so that some implementation may be made through High Court machinery…

The bench rises for a short while.

Court resumes

Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan begins his arguments.

Nakul Dewan: It is necessary to constitute an expert committee. This is not a problem that can be eliminated in a day. We need to decelerate the growth of community dogs. We also don’t want a situation where we have legislation but because of the lack of implementation of that we take a harsh step. For a road runner like me there are two concerns. Of course one of it is that a dog would chase me. But it’s also that a bus would run over me.

Nakul Dewan: Our suggestions have been setup on significant amount of studies which indicate that it is important to put dogs back in the same place where they were. There is a reason why a dog is said to be a man’s best friend. To equate them with buffaloes and roosters may not be appropriate. We need to find a humane solution to the problem.

Nakul Dewan: Affidavits indicate that States do not have infrastructure.

Court: Yes, Delhi also doesn’t have.

Nakul Dewan: Therefore once the data is there and infrastructure is in place, these steps (as per the last order) should be implemented. We are not shying away from that.

Nakul Dewan: Dogs can be micro-chipped.

Court: Is this microchipping which is mandatory for pet dogs, is it happening?

Nakul Dewan: No. But it should happen. It’s not an expensive mechanism. It’s not going to be very difficult. If an expert committee can be setup it’ll look into all these aspects to see if microchipping and geotagging can be setup.

Nakul Dewan: The expert committee should also include people from the ministry, the MCD, veterinary associations, NGOs etc.

Dewan supplies a tabulated chart as per enhancing states should provide data.

Nakul Dewan ends his submissions.

Counsel: The order should be expanded from institutional areas to residential areas as well. Obviously a dog can’t be counselled. But the dog owner can be counselled. We cannot lose site of the fact that ABC rules have been made with an intend to progressively decrease the population not to increase it.

Counsel: We have to see the difference between a domestic animal and a domesticated animal. Once a dog has bitten somebody, it shouldn’t be let out. We have an RWA dog bite helpline where 20,000 complaints have been received.

Counsel: One had to see the difference between a pet and a stray. While the stray may be capable of being domesticated but in a loose setup where he hasn’t been trained, I as a citizen, is in the nature of a mischief or a nuisance for a person who is not a dog lover. The basic problem is that dogs are territorial. Every 200-300 metres their territory changes. If a territory has changed and the feeding area is say 500m away then the dog will try to transgress other zones to get food. Obviously he will be in conflict with other dogs. Putting a feeding area, a person living in that area will be even aggravated because of the higher concentration of dogs.

Counsel: A pet dog will have an owner. Whereas a stray does not. The state is not the owner of the dog. Limited responsibility of state is to give vaccination etc.

Counsel: The public way which leads to my house and residence has to be kept safe according to BNS. So ABC rules have to be read in a way that my right to access to my house from another stature is not watered down.

Counsel: We are not suggesting that dogs have to be done away with. But the scheme of the act has to be understood in the right perspective.

Counsel: While a dog has a right to be protected, it has to be kept in background to the fact of the intent… We are not talking about having shelters in perpetuity. But until then there can be safe havens. We don’t know who the dog likes.

Court: The dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs. It will always attack when it senses that. We are talking from personal experience.

(Dog lovers nod their heads)

Court: Don't nod your heads. If they know you’re scared there is a higher chance they’ll attack you. Even your pet will do it.

Counsel: I have a right to access my house without public annoyance ( of presence stray dogs). [refers to section 270 of BNS] If we are to wait for 10 years or 5 years we are looking at 1,00,000 more deaths.

Counsel: Coming to community dogs. Community dogs refer to dogs without owners. A dog who does not have an owner, in the world at large, and is fiercely territorial, the food zone is available away from his territory. If someone is scared of dogs, a dog becomes his dog also because it’s a community dog.

Counsel: I have a right to enforce against the state. Therefore feeding zones in residential areas should also be covered by the earlier order.

Court: The SG yesterday said that there should be voting in RWAs. What do you say about that?

Counsel: Even if I am in minority, I am afraid dogs, my right to life cannot be whittled down.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan begins his arguments.

Divan appears on behalf of PETA.

Divan: There was an issue with regard to animals, science, potential conflict etc that came up in the Great Indian Bustard case. When the expert committee submitted its report in that case this court accepted the suggestions extensively.

Court: No analogy can be drawn to that order. That is an animal on the verge of extinction. It is a rare animal.

Divan: All I’m saying is that there should a room for suggestions from an expert committee.

Divan: Sometimes it may be worth having the advantage of some insights and guidance. The justification for the rule that mandates the dogs to be released back to the same place from where they were picked up is backed by science. Territoriality, rodent population increasing etc.

Divan: When dogs are housed in kennels, they’re usually kept in a very congested cage. Any animal confined in a small cage for a long time amounts to cruelty. The exercise for picking up dogs until a local committee is satisfied that there are adequate facilities for vaccination, sterilisation etc.

Divan: Unlike stray dogs, cattle usually have an owner. So the micro-chipping suggestion may be considered.

Divan ends his submissions.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra begins his arguments.

Luthra: The issue is there were certain directions passed that go beyond ABC rules. There is a scientific basis of the ABC rules. If the rules have to be tinkered with please consider an expert body to be tasked with it.

Luthra: When rules exist, should this court override the rules when there is no legislative vacuum?

Luthra points to precedents to answer the question in the negative.

Counsel appears representing students of Faculty of Law, University of Delhi - 8 students from the animal law cell.

Counsel: We have been sterilising at our own expense. We take them out of the campus, we get them vaccinated, sterilised and bring them back.

Court: So in the one year that you’ve done this population has increased?

Counsel: No. It has stayed the same. We have not had no dog bite incident in CLC in last 10 years. We have controlled situation in DU.

Counsel: Statistics given by the amicus, and states. Nobody has pointed out how many shelters are run by municipalities or governments. There are only 5 government owned shelters in the country. And these are only for sick and injured dogs. They can house 100 dogs each. To implement your lordships directions, the infrastructure does not exist.

Counsel: In the interregnum, your lordships should consider asking institutions to set up animal law cells, sterilise and vaccinate dogs on their own.

Counsel: We don’t want dogs roaming around in hospitals. But if the hospital administration is tasked to set up the same thing these students have done in DU, there may be some relief.

Senior Advocate Karuna Nandy begins her submissions.

Karuna Nandy: This is the establish a history of scientific implementation of ABC rules. I am an animal welfare organisation empaneled with MCD. I am responsible for implementing these ABC rules. I am a frontline responder. I am routinely called to capture rabid dogs etc.

Karuna Nandy: IIT Delhi had a problem with dogs. They were inside hostels and labs. We worked very closely with the staff and students, we implemented the ABC program on a war footing. The result was no case of rabies in the last 3 years, bite complains eliminated without relocating dogs or creating permanent detention facilities. There was micro-chipping and geotagging of dogs. From that you know which dogs are barking, have vulnerable families etc.

Karuna Nandy: What is the language to communicate with the dog. When it’s wagging its tail….

Court: Tell us what your suggestions are.

Karuna Nandy: We need isolation vans by which a rabid dog can be brought to the animal centre separately. Making sure they are not housed near healthy animals. We also need dedicated incinerators for disposal of carcasses.

Karuna Nandy: The segregation of stray dog and pet dog bite data for responsible accountability of owners.

Nandy points to a judgement of the Delhi High Court relating to feeding zones - feeding zones have to be determined in consultation with the local RWA.

Karuna Nandy: ABC rules are something that work and has been put together by experts. Given the success of the IIT model, perhaps in the same manner, if some institution are designated and see what the data is, what is the science behind the ABC rules and see if it works.