The court was disposing of a clutch of appeals and petitions that asked if the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules of 2001 (framed under the Act) would prevail over states’ local and municipal laws when it came to management of strays.
Stray dogs must not be indiscriminately killed and any action to manage their population must fall within the ambit of law, the Supreme Court has said.
The court was disposing of a clutch of appeals and petitions that asked if the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules of 2001 (framed under the Act) would prevail over states’ local and municipal laws when it came to management of strays.
The bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol underlined that compassion for all living beings is a value enshrined in the Constitution, saying: “…under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation(s) in place.”
Also Read | When rights repel rights: How the stray dog problem in India hurts the marginalised
The top court noted that different High Courts had taken divergent views on the issue. “…the Kerala High Court has upheld the 2001 Rules, further holding that the municipal laws for dealing with the stray dogs should be in compliance with the 2001 Rules and discretionary powers cannot be granted to the municipal authorities for killing the stray dogs.
The High Courts of Bombay, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh have held that the local authorities have discretionary powers to kill the stray dogs for them not to be subjected by the 2001 Rules, notified by the Central Government,” said the court in the May 9 order, made available last week.
The bench said all these challenges were made before March 10, 2023 — when the Annual Birth Control Rules were notified by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying.
The court said it was closing the proceedings in view of the new rules — that introduced mechanisms to prevent unnecessary pain for animals, specifically dogs — and left it open to the parties to pursue remedies if and when the need arose.
The bench clarified that all issues raised in the pleas “are kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding, before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law”.
“Whether be it may the mechanism in terms of the new Rules deficient/insufficient or repugnant to the Constitution or the parent statute(s); in our considered view, which can be best considered by the Constitutional Courts or other Forums accounting for all factors and circumstances, local in nature, being germane for adjudication for them and to decide it independently,” it said.
Appearing for Kerala-based animal advocacy group Walking Eye Foundation, which filed an intervention application, Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh told the court that there has been a recent spike in atrocities towards stray dogs.
The foundation sought immediate mass vaccination drives in every panchayat, municipality and corporation and local bodies must take steps to implement the Animal Birth Control Programme. It also wanted local bodies to issue feeding licences and deployment of a police squad in all feeding areas to monitor and protect licensed feeders.
The advocacy group prayed that all local bodies should have a rabies monitoring cell with an emergency helpline number that works 24X7 and that they take steps to spread awareness among the citizenry.It urged that healthy dogs should not be taken away for any reason except sterilisation or vaccination and only paralysed, old, blind, or sick dogs need to be moved to shelters permanently.
Niyati Parikh / TNN