Today, 24th April, The Supreme Court addressed the issue of stray dogs, showing a proactive approach. However, it firmly rejected any attempts to broaden the scope of the matter beyond its current parameters. This decision highlights the court’s focus on addressing specific issues while maintaining legal boundaries. The ruling emphasizes the need for targeted solutions within established legal frameworks.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, affirmed its commitment to addressing issues concerning orders from civic bodies regarding stray dogs, particularly in Kerala and Mumbai. However, it clarified that it would not permit an expansion of the current scope under consideration. The court suggested that parties involved should refer to the Animal Birth Control Rules of 2023, noting that many of the raised issues could potentially find resolution through these guidelines.
A bench comprising justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, stated,
“We want to clarify one point: We are not avoiding addressing the matter, but we will not permit an expansion of the scope,”
Read Also:HUMANS vs DOGS | Kerala HC: Priority Should Be Given to Human Lives Over Stray Dogs
The bench noted that the 2023 rules implemented and should be examined.
One lawyer suggested that the bench might allow them some time to review the 2023 rules, after which they would report back to the court.
The bench remarked,
“The crux of the matter lies here,”
Another lawyer mentioned a recent advisory issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) regarding the implementation of the 2023 rules and expressed,
“If we all review it, I believe 90 per cent of the issues will be resolved.”
The bench urged,
“Please take the time to review both the 2023 rules and the advisory . After examining these 2023 rules, if the majority of issues are resolved, then we can suggest that authorities look into the matters and address them in accordance with the law.“
Setting the next hearing for May 8, the statement read,
“And if any issues persist even after that, the parties are free to seek redressal in the high courts,”
Read Also:Lawyer’s Dog Attack Injury Spurs Supreme Court Debate, CJI Urged for Action
During the hearings in September last year, the highest court noted its reluctance to issue interim directives and expressed its intention to make decisions after thoroughly reviewing pertinent laws, rules, their enforcement, and the raised concerns.
One advocate highlighted the varying perspectives among different high courts on the matter.
This decision likely involved a comprehensive analysis of relevant laws, regulations, and differing viewpoints, reflecting a balanced approach to a complex and sensitive topic.
In previous hearings, the highest court requested the AWBI to submit an affidavit containing information regarding incidents of dog bites over recent years in various states and major cities within those states. The court emphasized the need to strike a balance between ensuring public safety and upholding animal rights. Several NGOs and individuals have approached the highest court to challenge rulings by certain high courts, such as the Bombay High Court and Kerala High Court, which granted municipal authorities the authority to address the issue of stray dogs in accordance with established regulations.