The Supreme Court on Wednesday grappled with the complex issue of stray dogs in public spaces, hearing arguments that pitted animal empathy against public safety concerns. The debate unfolded as senior advocates presented starkly different perspectives on how to address what the court termed the "street canine menace."
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing petitioners, argued that treating animals with empathy prevents attacks. "If you invade their space, they will attack," Sibal said, suggesting that humane approaches yield better outcomes.
Justice Vikram Nath countered this perspective with practical concerns: "It is just not about biting, but also threat caused by dogs. How can you identify? Which dog is in what mood in the morning, you don't know."
The three-judge bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, raised serious safety concerns about animals on streets and highways, indicating the court's struggle to balance competing interests.
Sibal suggested a structured approach: "If there's an unruly dog, you call a centre. It will be sterilized and released back."
This recommendation aligns with the court's evolving stance on the matter. On November 7 last year, the Supreme Court had directed the removal of stray dogs from institutional premises—including schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands, and railway stations—with relocation to designated shelters after sterilization and vaccination.
The court modified this position on August 22, allowing strays to be released after sterilization and immunization rather than mandating indefinite shelter housing. This softening of the earlier blanket order followed backlash from animal welfare advocates.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing animal welfare NGOs, presented disturbing allegations about the treatment of both dogs and those who care for them.
"Women ferociously attacked, beaten. Protect us. Dogs are sentient beings. Dogs have been poisoned, beaten, suffocated," Gonsalves told the court.
He made the shocking claim that "raping of dogs by human beings is a common practice" and lamented that "cruelty to dogs removed as an offense!" Gonsalves argued that many Indians feel safer with stray dogs present, noting that "at night, guard will sleep, dog will be awake."
The hearing highlights India's ongoing struggle to reconcile public safety with animal welfare in communities where stray dogs are ubiquitous. The court faces the challenge of crafting orders that protect citizens—particularly children and vulnerable populations—while acknowledging the role dogs play in many communities and the ethical responsibilities toward sentient creatures.
The bench's questions suggest they are seeking practical solutions that address genuine safety concerns without resorting to inhumane measures. The mention of dogs' unpredictable "mood" underscores the difficulty of creating one-size-fits-all policies for living creatures with varying temperaments and experiences.
As the Supreme Court continues deliberations, its eventual ruling will need to navigate the intersection of urban management, public health, animal rights, and community dynamics—a complex task in a nation with deep cultural connections to animals but growing concerns about public spaces and safety.
Leave Your Comment