New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the attitude of people and organisations that feed stray dogs in public places, asking whether their compassion is limited to animals and not extended to humans.
During the hearing, the apex court raised a pointed query on accountability, asking who should be held responsible if a nine-year-old child is killed in a stray dog attack.
“Shouldn’t organisations that advocate feeding stray dogs in public places also be held accountable?” the court asked.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar submitted that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules are primarily aimed at birth control and that even their full implementation would not completely eliminate the risk of dog attacks. He added that the ABC rules do not adequately address the issue of aggressive stray dogs.
Recalling its previous hearing on January 8, the bench noted the poor implementation of the ABC Rules and had also cautioned dog lovers on their responsibilities. At that hearing, the court’s observation that dogs can smell fear in humans before attacking had gone viral. The court clarified that it had never directed the removal of all street dogs but had only emphasised their humane treatment in accordance with the ABC Rules.
The court further observed that stray dogs can carry specific viruses and that when such dogs are attacked and eaten by wild animals like tigers, they can transmit diseases such as canine distemper, which may eventually lead to the death of the infected animals.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued that the issue should not be reduced to a dog-versus-human debate, but viewed more broadly as an animal-versus-human conflict.
He pointed out that around 50,000 people die every year due to snake bites and that incidents of monkey attacks are also reported. Singh added that dogs play a role in controlling rat populations and that maintaining ecological balance is essential.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy contended that killing stray dogs would not reduce their population, and that sterilisation is the only effective solution.
“If regulators had done their job properly, we would not be facing this situation today,” she said, adding that organisations working on the ground should be adequately funded. She also alleged that several programme centres are failing to properly utilise the funds allocated to them.
A woman who was herself a victim of a dog attack also addressed the court, expressing her belief that proper implementation of the ABC programme would help reduce both aggression and the stray dog population. She said she was bitten by a community dog without any apparent provocation and wanted to understand the reason behind such behaviour.
“The dog had been subjected to cruelty for a long time. It was kicked and stoned. This was defensive aggression triggered by fear,” she said, adding that cruelty towards otherwise friendly community dogs instils fear, which eventually manifests as aggression. She emphasised that she had suffered due to the actions of others.
The Supreme Court has been hearing the matter as a suo motu case since July last year.
(IANS)
