Supreme Court flags rise in stray dog attacks, raps local bodies over birth control lapses

The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised concern over the rising number of dog bite incidents in the country, criticising municipal authorities and local bodies for failing to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria heard detailed arguments in the suo motu case initiated by the apex court on the issue of stray dogs and other animals in public places. The hearing will continue on Thursday.

During the proceedings, the bench flagged serious lapses in the enforcement of court directions, observing that fatalities were occurring not only due to dog bites but also because of road accidents caused by stray animals.

“The roads should be clear of dogs and stray animals. It is not only the dog bites but also the roaming of stray animals on roads that are proving dangerous and causing accidents. No one knows which dog is in what mood in the morning. Civic bodies have to implement the rules, modules and directions strictly,” the bench said.

The court noted that it was hearing pleas seeking modification of its earlier orders after several lawyers and animal rights activists claimed they had not been heard before the November 7 order was issued. Justice Sandeep Mehta underscored the gravity of the issue by citing recent accidents involving two Rajasthan High Court judges, one of whom continues to suffer from spinal injuries. “It’s a serious issue,” he said.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for a petitioner seeking modification of the earlier order, argued that indiscriminate capture of stray dogs was not a solution. He suggested adopting a scientific approach to reduce animal–human conflict, recommending the CSVR (Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate and Release) model to control the stray dog population and reduce dog bite incidents.

“Prevention is always better than cure,” Justice Nath observed, adding that the court had only directed the removal of stray dogs from institutional areas and had not interfered with existing laws or regulations. Clarifying its stand, the bench said its focus was on ensuring strict implementation of rules, regulations, modules and standard operating procedures (SOPs) by states and civic bodies.

“Some states have not responded to compliance with our orders and implementation of the arguments. We will be very harsh with those states. All the rules, regulations and SOPs need to be followed,” the court said.

At the outset, senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appointed as amicus curiae, informed the court that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had framed an SOP to implement the court’s directions.

“They have identified 1,400 km of road as a vulnerable stretch. However, after detection, the NHAI says that the state governments have to take care of it,” Agarwal said. The bench suggested fencing highways and expressways to prevent stray animals from entering roads.

Agarwal also pointed out that states including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Punjab were yet to file compliance affidavits, while some others had submitted “disappointing” responses. Justice Nath said the court would take up the issue of non-compliance by those states. Sibal further argued that the response to the stray dog issue must reflect a mature and responsible society.

“First of all, this is not an adversarial issue and we are here as dog lovers. If one tiger is a man-eater, we don't kill all tigers. “We must make sure that sterilisation takes place and the population must come down. There is a process for that,” he said, pointing to the CSVR model and claiming it had significantly reduced the stray dog population in Lucknow.

He also warned that keeping rabid and non-rabid dogs together in shelters could lead to the spread of rabies. In a lighter remark, the bench said, “The only thing missing is providing counselling to the dogs as well so that he doesn't bite when released back.”

Senior advocates Colin Gonsalves, Anand Grover, C U Singh and several animal rights activists echoed similar submissions. Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, highlighted the shortage of shelters required to house stray dogs.

The bench recalled that on November 7 last year, it had ordered the immediate relocation of stray dogs from institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations after noting an “alarming rise” in dog bite incidents. It had also directed authorities to remove cattle and other stray animals from state and national highways and expressways.

The apex court initiated the suo motu proceedings on July 28 last year following media reports of stray dog attacks leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.