Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The Supreme Court of India's recent remarks on the issue of stray dogs and the killing of stray dogs have raised a furor over the country. The problem is one of two conflicting concerns, human life and animal welfare. With the increasing number of dog attacks in many cities in India, the Court has tried to balance the public safety concerns and the legal and ethical principles of animal welfare.
The judgment has been one of the most important legal debates regarding stray dog management in recent years. India has a huge stray dog population and many urban and rural areas are unable to effectively manage stray dogs. There have been a significant rise in dog bites, dog attacks on children and aggressive stray behaviour.
Citizens are often at risk from stray dogs in hospitals, schools, bus stations, railway platforms, markets and residential colonies. The Supreme Court during the hearings observed that the dog-bite cases reported in several states was alarming. The Court acknowledged the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure
citizens safety and security. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules are intended to curb the cruelty to stray dogs and promote humane dog population control through sterilisation and vaccination.
The animal rights community is vehemently against the indiscriminate culling of stray dogs and calls for long-term solutions like sterilisation drives, vaccination campaigns, and proper waste disposal. These groups estimate that the main reason for the aggression of stray dogs is that they are poorly managed in urban areas, that there is no control over their food and that sterilisation policies are not being implemented properly.
Euthanasia began to be a topic of controversy when there were discussions of dealing with
aggressive or dangerous stray dogs. Euthanasia is the humane and painless killing of animals, typically those that are ill or in danger to others. The indiscriminate killing of stray dogs is not allowed by Indian law. In certain cases, though, the authorities can put down dogs that are terminally ill, seriously injured, rabid or if they are known to be dangerously aggressive.
The Supreme Court stated that public safety cannot be sacrificed just because of the involvement of animal rights. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to life and personal security, the Court said. Everyone is entitled to use the roads, parks, schools and hospitals without fear of attack from stray dogs. The judges noted that though compassion towards animals is important, the human life should be the primary concern of the State. A vital aspect of the Court’s reasoning was its guidance on "sensitive public places.
The Court said that stray dogs taken from places like hospitals, schools, airports etc. should not be sent back to the same places after they are sterilised. This was disputed by various animal welfare groups, which said that the ABC Rules mandate that dogs be returned to their home territories.
The Court, however, held that the rules have to be implemented with due consideration for practical considerations and public safety. There are a lot of citizens who support aggressive stray dogs to be dealt w more severely. Often, families of dog bite victims complain that the State has failed to protect the common man.
There is a growing demand for stronger measures to avert further incidents; advocates
for such actions argue that dangerous dogs should be completely removed from public areas. The comments made by the Supreme Court seek to find a middle ground between these competing interests. The Court prohibited the mass extermination of stray dogs. Instead, it stressed that local authorities have a duty to act compassionately towards animals while also protecting human lives.
Municipalities were reminded of their responsibility to effectively
implement sterilisation and vaccination programs and to deal with complaints from the public about aggressive dogs. The judgment brings to the fore a bigger governance challenge in India. Lack of funding, veterinary facilities and shelter facilities in many municipalities. This indicates that the animal birth control programs are not well implemented. The lack of coordination between the local authorities, animal welfare organisations and public health departments has exacerbated the stray dog problem
The Supreme Court's intervention has thus, brought the need for a comprehensive and practical policy to the fore. The Supreme Court's reasoning in the case of euthanizing a dog illustrates the fine line between compassion and public safety. Indian law not only forbids making the animals suffer, but also the responsibility of the State for the protection of human life. The Court has stated that animal welfare cannot be at the expense of public safety. But the judgement does encourage euthanasia at all , on the contrary it emphasizes a peaceful co-existence between the humans and the animals.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.