Karnataka HC quizzes officials on action taken on Animal Birth Control rules

The High Court of Karnataka on Monday questioned the authorities regarding measures taken by them to implement the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, and asked them to report back to it.

The High Court of Karnataka on Monday questioned the authorities regarding measures taken by them to implement the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, and asked them to report back to it. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Ashok S Kinagi was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Ramesh L Naik, an advocate.

As per government data as of mid-March, 1.81 lakh dogs have been sterilised in Bengaluru over the last four years, but government officials said they felt ‘helpless’ over the stray dog menace in the city. (HT Photo, for representation only)

The PIL was on the implementation of measures to prevent human-stray dog conflict. The petition pointed out two specific incidents involving stray dogs in Karnataka- one was the stray dog attack on a four-year-old girl in Athani taluk of Belagavi resulting in the child's death, and the second was the case of Adi Narayana, the grandson of a politician-businessman, who allegedly ran his car over a stray dog on a pavement.

The petition sought strict implementation of Rule 6 and 7 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 which prescribes methodology for management of the street dog population, eradicating rabies and avoiding man-animal conflict.

The petition contended that there were rules and laws to take care of and manage the stray dogs and there were also Supreme Court judgements which have issued guidelines apart from the guidelines issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) in this regard. But, the authorities were not implementing them and failing to regulate the life and movement of street/stray dogs leading to the conflict.

Implementation of the guidelines and rules would avoid cruelty on the animals, the petition said. Naik had made representations to the authorities in this regard but failed to receive any response forcing him to file the PIL.