The Supreme Court strongly criticised arguments made on behalf of Sharmila Tagore against a uniform approach to managing stray dogs, calling them “completely removed from reality.” The Bench rejected examples like dogs living in hospital campuses and warned of serious public health risks, reiterating that stray dog management must follow ABC rules.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday made strong observations while hearing arguments related to the stray dog issue and sharply criticised submissions made on behalf of actor Sharmila Tagore, saying her arguments were
“completely devoid from reality.”
The Court was dealing with concerns raised against what was described as a uniform or “one-size-fits-all” approach to managing the growing menace of stray dogs in public places. Tagore, through her lawyer, argued that recent measures to deal with strays may not always be the best solution and that a more nuanced approach was required.
During the hearing, Tagore’s counsel said that while it was accepted that some dogs may need to be put to sleep, such action should only be taken after a proper process. He argued that dogs must first be identified as aggressive by a competent body.
“We suggest an expert committee for considering the behaviour of dogs… Let’s see the difference between aggressive and normal dogs,”
Tagore’s lawyer said.
“There is a dog named ‘Goldie’ in AIIMS. She’s been there for many years.”
The Supreme Court reacted strongly to this example and rejected the argument outright. Referring to the presence of dogs in hospital premises like AIIMS, the Bench questioned the practicality and safety of such situations.
“You are completely removed from reality. Don’t try to glorify these dogs in hospitals,”
the Supreme Court said.
The Court went further and pointed out the risks involved, especially in sensitive spaces such as hospitals. Responding specifically to the AIIMS example, the Bench remarked,
“Was she being taken to the hospital operation theatre also? Any dog that’s on the streets is bound to have ticks. And a dog with ticks in a hospital will have disastrous consequences. Do you understand? We’ll let you know the reality of what is being argued.”
Reiterating its displeasure, the Court again said,
“You are completely removed from reality. Don’t try to glorify these dogs in the hospitals.”
Tagore’s lawyer then suggested that dogs which had bitten people could be identified through colour-coded collars, a practice allegedly followed in countries such as Georgia and Armenia. This proposal was also rejected by the Bench.
“What is the population of those countries? Please be realistic counsel,”
the Supreme Court responded.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi referred to the Supreme Court’s past decision in the Aravalli hills and ranges case. He pointed out that important decisions had earlier been taken without the involvement of expert committees and cautioned the Court against overstepping into areas meant for legislative or expert action.
“Judicial intervention is meant to operate only in the interstices where gaps exist, and not in areas where the legislature has consciously chosen not to legislate. Your lordships will be building a new edifice if they enter into that territory. While our amicus is great, the concept of amici is basically law advisors. They are not domain experts. Your lordships must have domain experts along with the amicus,”
Singhvi submitted.
The hearing also saw concerns raised about the safety of women who feed and care for stray dogs. Senior advocate Mahalaxmi Pavani told the Court that women feeders were facing abuse and even physical violence in several parts of the country.
Responding to this, the Supreme Court referred back to its earlier remarks and said,
“People can use derogatory statements for anyone. Things are said about us also. Take action.”
Pavani highlighted alleged attacks by what she described as “anti-feeder vigilantes” and claimed that authorities were not acting against them.
“It’s happening across the country. In Haryana, societies have hired bouncers. At one place, in 38 seconds, a woman was slapped many times. Yet there is rampant illegal breeding of dogs happening,”
she said.
The Bench, however, made it clear that such issues should be addressed through existing legal remedies.
“Nothing to do with stray dogs issues, if you have suggestions, you can give… File an FIR if they are attacking women. Go to high court,”
the Supreme Court said when it was argued that FIRs were not being registered.
The Court also clarified that it had not ordered the removal of all stray dogs from the streets. It reiterated that its earlier directions were only to ensure that stray dogs are treated in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
In her petition, Tagore had argued that dealing with the stray dog problem requires a scientific and psychological approach.
“The ABC rules may not be foolproof, so it needs to be given a look… The answer is science, psychology, and a module-specific framework whereby dogs have to be captured and then released,”
her lawyer submitted.
Towards the end of the hearing, the Supreme Court was informed that completely removing dogs from public spaces could impose a massive financial burden, potentially costing the government up to Rs 26,800 crore.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
