In a hearing that laid bare decades of administrative failure, a Supreme Court bench on Tuesday delivered a scathing indictment of state and union governments over India’s escalating stray dog crisis. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, announced that "heavy compensation" will be imposed on states for every death caused by a dog bite, signaling a forceful judicial intervention into a perennial public health and safety issue.
Justice Vikram Nath observed that the proceedings had transcended a typical legal hearing, noting the court had become a "public platform" for the issue. This remark underscored the intense public divide and emotional charge surrounding the matter, which pits animal welfare activists against citizens fearing for their safety.
The court’s frustration was palpable as it addressed what it called the "complete failure" of authorities. "You yourself have mentioned that parliament has been looking into it since the 1950s. It is because of the Union and state governments that the problem has multiplied 1000 times," the bench stated.
Central to the court’s censure was the gross non-implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules across states. The bench unequivocally said state governments had "failed miserably" in this statutory duty. "We are going to take the Union government and state governments to task," the judges asserted, demanding a concrete plan of action.
To ensure accountability, the court declared a new financial deterrence: "For every man, woman and child who has lost their lives to a dog bite, we will impose heavy compensation on the government responsible."
In a significant expansion of liability, the court stated that those who feed stray dogs would also be held accountable. This directly addresses a core contention in the nationwide debate: whether community feeding, often done compassionately by citizens and caregivers, contributes to the proliferation of dog populations and territorial aggression without ensuring subsequent ABC measures.
The hearing saw heated arguments from both sides. Advocate Menaka Guruswamy described the issue as an "emotional matter," a sentiment reflecting the deep attachment of animal lovers. However, the bench provided a stark counter-narrative, referencing numerous videos of stray dogs attacking vulnerable individuals. Last week, the court had remarked that some arguments by dog lovers, including counsel for petitioner and actor Sharmila Tagore, were "far from reality."
The court also declined to delve into allegations of harassment against women dog feeders by "anti-feeder vigilantes," stating it was a law-and-order issue to be addressed via FIRs. Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani had highlighted cases where women feeders faced molestation and beatings, charges the court directed towards local police mechanisms.
The Supreme Court has now positioned itself as a strict monitor, demanding implementation over deliberation. "We just want implementation of statutory provision," the bench stated, scheduling further hearings to scrutinize government action plans.
This judicial stance marks a pivotal moment, attempting to balance animal welfare with fundamental human rights to safety. By attaching a direct financial cost to state inaction and personal liability to feeders, the court aims to catalyze a long-delayed solution to a crisis affecting streets and communities across India. The message is clear: the era of unimplemented rules and unresolved conflict must end, with accountability as the new cornerstone.
Leave Your Comment