E-Paper
'India shown in bad light': Supreme Court blasts states over inaction on stray dogs issue
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the chief secretaries of states and Union Territories, other than West Bengal and Telangana, to appear before it on Nov 3.
The Supreme Court on Monday lashed out at state governments and Union Territories for failing to file compliance affidavits in the ongoing stray dogs case, warning that their apathy was tarnishing India’s global image amid continuing attacks across the country.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria directed the chief secretaries of all states and Union Territories, except West Bengal and Telangana, to personally appear before the court on November 3 at 10.30 am to explain the non-compliance.
“Three months were given to them in August, but nothing has come on record. Continuous incidents are happening and your country is shown in a bad light at international platforms,” said Justice Nath, adding that the court would not hesitate to impose costs for the continuing non-compliance.
‘Who is appearing for the states?’
The proceedings opened with Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra informing the bench that all stray dog matters from various High Courts had been transferred to the Supreme Court.
Justice Nath immediately asked: “Who is appearing for the states? We don’t find any compliance affidavit by any state.”
Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) responded that it had filed its affidavit, a claim echoed by the representatives of Telangana and West Bengal.
However, Justice Nath noted that while these three entities - MCD, Telangana, and West Bengal - had submitted compliance affidavits, they were “not yet on record” as the filings came during the Diwali recess.
Bench questions practicality of impleading RWAs
At one point, when a counsel suggested that the court implead all Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs), Justice Nath retorted sharply: “You want us to implead all RWAs? How many lakhs of RWAs will be here? Give practical, reasonable suggestions.”
Justice Sandeep Mehta, meanwhile, observed, “What about cruelty to humans?” - highlighting the rising number of dog-bite incidents across states.
Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal urged the court to implead the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and the Government of India, arguing that the MCD’s affidavit “does not disclose the details requested in the Court’s order.”
To this, Justice Nath assured, “We are slowly monitoring it, to see that the object is achieved.”
Court expands case nationwide
The August 22 order, central to Monday’s hearing, had expanded the scope of the case from Delhi-NCR to the entire country. It had directed all states and UTs to catch, sterilise, vaccinate, and release stray dogs as part of a humane population control programme.
The same order also modified an earlier restriction on releasing vaccinated dogs, calling it “too harsh,” and allowed their release post-sterilisation and deworming.
However, with only three compliance affidavits filed so far, the bench noted widespread non-compliance and a failure of representation from most states and UTs.
Before rising, the bench directed that the Delhi chief secretary also appear on the next date of hearing.
The matter will next be heard on November 3, when the Court will decide further action based on the explanations from the state and UT chief secretaries.
