After Supreme Court, Rajasthan HC Orders Civic Bodies To Remove Stray Dogs From City Roads
The Rajasthan High Court ordered municipal bodies to remove stray dogs from public places and said officials could lodge FIRs if their work is obstructed.
After the Supreme Court's landmark order, the Rajasthan High Court on Monday directed municipal bodies to remove stray dogs and other animals from city roads while ensuring that minimum physical harm is caused to them.
The HC said that municipal officials are at liberty to take action against any persons if they obstruct them from removing stray animals from public roads or colonies, including by lodging FIRs for obstructing public servants from performing their duties.
'The Municipal bodies shall also undertake a special drive to remove stray dogs and other animals from city roads while ensuring that minimum physical harm is caused to them," said a division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Ravi Chirania.
'If an individual or a group of persons obstruct the employees of Municipalities from discharging their duties in removing the stray animals from the roads/colonies/public paths, then Municipal Officials/employees will be free to take appropriate action against them under the relevant Municipal Laws including lodging of the FIRs for obstructing public servants from performing their duties."
The court had taken suo moto cognisance due to rising dog bite incidents and the menace of stray animals on public roads and highways in the state, which have resulted in multiple deaths.
Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued strong directions to the Delhi civic body to round up stray dogs, sterilise them, and move them permanently to shelters, noting that the order should be enforced strictly to make the capital safe.
The court said that there should be no compromise on the drive and warned that if any individual or organisation comes in the way of the forces picking up stray dogs, strict action will be taken against them.
Expressing concern over public safety, especially of children, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, 'Infants and young children should not, at any cost, fall prey to such stray dogs. Actions should inspire confidence among people."
Several animal welfare organisations criticised the Supreme Court's order directing the removal of stray dogs from Delhi-NCR and their relocation to shelter homes, calling the move unscientific and ineffective.
view comments
First Published:
August 11, 2025, 20:39 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Regulate stray dog population, shelters not the solution: RSS chief
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat (File photo) NEW DELHI: RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has said the stray dog issue in Delhi-NCR should be addressed through measures to regulate their population, rather than confining them to shelters - an approach that echoes the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules mandated under law. Bhagwat's comments come amid renewed debate over the Supreme Court's Aug 11 order directing Delhi-NCR authorities to permanently relocate all strays to shelters. "All animals have the right to live. The problem can be solved only by regulating the population of street dogs, but it cannot be resolved by putting them in shelters," said Bhagwat, a veterinary science graduate, while addressing a religious congregation at Jawaharlal Nehru Indoor Stadium in Cuttack Thursday. He added, "Sheltering all street dogs is not a practical solution. The only effective way is to implement sterilisation and vaccination, as already prescribed in law. " He referred to a cultural practice involving cattle rearing, saying that while milking a cow, some milk is taken for human use and the rest is left for the calf. "This is the art of striking a balance between man and nature. Nature should be conserved by maintaining a balance between development and the environment," he said. SC's Aug 11 order has been criticised by politicians, animal rights groups and scientists, who argue it contradicts the ABC (Dogs) Rules, 2023. On Wednesday, CJI B R Gavai withdrew the suo motu case from the earlier bench, and a larger three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath heard the matter afresh on Thursday.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Zelenskyy Urges India's Help To End Russia-Ukraine War As Trump Meets Putin At Alaska
Last Updated: Zelenskyy extended wishes to Modi on the occasion of India's Independence Day and referenced their recent phone call earlier this week. As US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet in Anchorage, Alaska, for talks aimed at ending the Russia-Ukraine war, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has voiced strong concerns about being left out of the negotiations. Zelenskyy insists that no final deal should be reached without Ukraine's direct involvement. Amid mounting anxiety over the summit, Zelenskyy has turned to India, reaching out with a symbolic and timely message for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Just hours before the Trump-Putin meeting began, Zelenskyy extended wishes to Modi on the occasion of India's Independence Day and referenced their recent phone call earlier this week. 'Our nations share the experience of standing up for freedom and dignity, as well as the pursuit of peace and development," Zelenskyy wrote. In the same message, the Ukrainian President expressed hope that India would step forward to play a role in ending the ongoing war. 'We hope that India will contribute to efforts aimed at ending the war, so that our freedom and sovereignty are truly secure," he added. Congratulations to the people of India, President @rashtrapatibhvn, and Prime Minister @narendramodi on the Independence Day!This week we had a good, candid conversation with Prime Minister @narendramodi when I had an opportunity to personally convey my best wishes on this… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 15, 2025 The message to India comes at a critical juncture, as President Putin sits down with Trump to explore possible solutions to the nearly four-year-long conflict. European leaders, along with Zelenskyy, remain wary of what concessions Trump might be willing to entertain. Earlier this week, Trump held a virtual meeting with Zelenskyy and several European heads of state, where he reiterated his support for Ukraine. According to two European diplomats who spoke to CNN, Trump told participants that he would advocate for an unconditional ceasefire during his discussions with Putin. The sources also noted that Trump stated the issue of Ukrainian territory was 'not for him to negotiate." Zelenskyy also held a separate call with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff ahead of the summit. While he sees the Trump-Putin meeting as a symbolic win for Putin, Zelenskyy remains cautiously hopeful. Trump has hinted that if today's talks in Alaska go well, a trilateral summit involving Ukraine could follow. view comments First Published: August 16, 2025, 02:25 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Deadline for guvs, Prez will tilt power balance: Centre
The Union government has cautioned the Supreme Court that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on state bills, as mandated by the court in an April ruling, would amount to one organ of government assuming powers not vested in it, upsetting the delicate separation of powers and leading to a 'constitutional disorder'. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) In detailed written submissions filed in a presidential reference under Article 143, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the apex court cannot, even under its extraordinary powers in Article 142, amend the Constitution or defeat the intent of its framers by creating procedural mandates where none exist in the constitutional text. According to SG Mehta, while there may be 'limited issues in the operationalisation' of the assent procedure, these cannot justify 'relegating the high position of the gubernatorial office to a subservient one'. The positions of the governor and the president, he argued, are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses, he said, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and 'not necessarily judicial' interventions. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, has set aside nine days of hearings, starting from August 19 and spreading into September, to decide 14 constitutional questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. These questions stem from the Supreme Court's April 8 judgment that, for the first time, imposed binding timelines on governors and the president in relation to state bills, and held that prolonged inaction could result in 'deemed assent' under Article 142. The April verdict, delivered by justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, arose from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government alleging that its governor had indefinitely delayed action on 10 important bills. It directed governors to act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-passed bills, and to decide within three months whether to grant assent or reserve them for presidential consideration. The ruling described the governor's inaction as 'illegal' and a constitutional subversion, prompting a fierce debate on the limits of judicial review over high constitutional functionaries. Challenging the foundations of that decision, Mehta has told the court that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governor's and the president's options upon receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution,' he said. Articles 200 and 201, Mehta emphasised, employ four different verbs -- 'assent', 'withhold', 'reserve' and 'return' -- each carrying distinct meaning and discretionary scope. This flexibility, he said, was 'carefully crafted' by the framers to meet exigencies that cannot always be anticipated. Any attempt to fix rigid timelines 'renders the intention of the framers nugatory' and hampers the ability of these high functionaries to safeguard constitutional compliance, democratic principles and the national interest. The submissions further contend that certain 'high-plenary' constitutional functions are inherently non-justiciable because they are textually committed to the political branches, and there are no judicially manageable standards for reviewing them. 'The assent of the governor or the president is integrally connected with the legislative process of a state legislature and attracts the constitutional bars on judicial inquiry under Articles 122 and 212,' Mehta said. Such acts, he added, fall within the category of proceedings that cannot be called into question in a court of law. The SG also cited Article 361, which grants immunity to the president and governors from court proceedings for acts done in the exercise of their official duties. The phrase 'done or purported to be done' in discharge of constitutional responsibility, Mehta said, is of 'wide import' and bars any relief that would require these functionaries to explain their decisions or act in a particular fashion. The Centre has argued that Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to do 'complete justice', is curative and procedural in nature, and cannot be used to override constitutional provisions or reallocate powers vested in other organs. 'The very width of the power brings with it a high threshold of duty to not exercise the same in such a manner that amends the text of the Constitution itself and fundamental constitutional and legal principles,' the submissions stated. Article 142, Mehta insisted, is 'not a supervening judicial power' that can run contrary to the constitutional scheme. The presidential reference, the first of its kind in several years, poses far-reaching questions: whether 'deemed assent' is constitutionally valid; whether timelines for governors and the president can be imposed through judicial orders; whether the exercise of their discretion under Articles 200 and 201 is justiciable; whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review; and whether disputes of this nature can be decided through the court's writ jurisdiction or only under Article 131, which governs disputes between the Union and states. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have already challenged the maintainability of the reference, calling it an attempt to re-litigate settled law and a disguised appeal against the April ruling. The bench will hear their preliminary objections for an hour on August 19 before moving to the merits of the Union's case. Since Independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on questions of law and public importance. While not binding on the president, such opinions have historically influenced constitutional interpretation in significant ways.
