E-Paper
‘Dogs can smell fear’: What Supreme Court said in the stray dogs case | Top updates
The Supreme Court hearing in the matter of stray dogs handling remained inconclusive on Thursday and was scheduled to continue on Friday.
The Supreme Court on Thursday said that dogs can “smell” people who are afraid of them or have previously suffered a dog bite and attack such people, adding that it had not directed the removal of every dog from the streets
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, while hearing arguments in the stray dogs case, clarified that the directive was to treat these stray canines according to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
The top court is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
‘Did not direct removal of every stray dog’
The Supreme Court bench was hearing pleas, including those filed by dog lovers seeking modification of its earlier orders and those for stringent compliance with the directives.
"We have not directed the removal of every dog from the streets. The direction is to treat them as per the rules," PTI quoted Justice Mehta as observing.
The bench heard submissions of a battery of lawyers, including senior advocates C U Singh, Krishnan Venugopal, Dhruv Mehta, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shyam Divan, Sidharth Luthra and Karuna Nundy.
The rodent menace argument
During his submissions, senior advocate CU Singh stated that in places like Delhi, there is a rodent menace, and the national capital also has a unique problem with monkeys.
He argued that the abrupt removal of canines would lead to an increase in the rodent population, which has consequences.
"When the rodent population goes up, we have seen very disastrous consequences," advocate Singh argued.
Justice Mehta observed, "In a lighter vein, dogs and cats are enemies. Cats kill rodents. So we should promote more cats."
Singh said they were not questioning the orders passed by the apex court, but were only requesting the bench to revisit and modify them.
"Let these dogs also be regulated in a manner that has proved to be the only efficacious manner, which is sterilisation, vaccination and re-release in the territory," he said.
The bench said, "Tell us how many dogs each hospital should have roaming around in the corridors, in wards, near patient beds?"
Advocate Krishnan Venugopal stated that dogs cannot be in hospitals, and to date, there has been no will to implement the statutory rules. He said there was no budgetary allocation to ensure the implementation of the rules.
‘ABC rules not implemented’
Advocate CU Singh said the top court's intention in the matter was unquestionable, and it had noted how the ABC Rules and orders passed by the courts were not implemented.
"What alarmed your lordships and rightly so is the fact that despite the Animal Birth Control Rules being in force, despite court orders to implement it, your lordships found that in a large number of states and in several cities, they are not being implemented," he said.
Another senior lawyer argued that a census and data on stray dogs were essential.
When one of the advocates referred to the lack of infrastructure, including that of dog shelters, the bench said, "We are all conscious of that."
"Please tell us, is this micro-chipping, which is mandatory for pet dogs, really happening?" the bench asked.
One of the lawyers said, "In this country, it is not happening, but can it happen, should it happen? In my respectful submission, the answer is yes."
SC says it’s under no pressure
According to a PTI report, a counsel referred to the stray dog menace in residential complexes and said public ways have to be kept safe.
"We are under no pressure. You are mistaken," Justice Vikram Nath observed, after the lawyer said the apex court was apparently under pressure.
When one of the lawyers argued that one did not know if the dog would like him or not, Justice Nath observed, "A dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs and who has suffered a dog bite, and he will always attack."
The counsel referred to a recent case in which a person unleashed a pet dog on someone else.
"Unintentionally also, if a pet goes and attacks a neighbour, that is an offence," the bench observed.
Several lawyers also provided suggestions on how to address the issue.
Hearing to continue on Friday
The hearing in the matter remained inconclusive and was scheduled to continue on Friday.
At the fag end of the hearing, Justice Mehta referred to a report a media report on stray dogs hunting down a “rare species” in Ladakh. The bench asked all the concerned lawyers in the case to review the report and come prepared on Friday.
