Cruel, shortsighted: Rahul Gandhi slams Supreme Court's order on stray dogs
On Monday, the top court ordered civic authorities in Delhi, Noida and Gurugram to begin picking up 5,000 stray dogs from vulnerable areas within six weeks, sterilise them and keep them in shelters permanently. It also directed the construction of dog shelters within eight weeks, warned against releasing any captured dogs, and said strict action would be taken against anyone obstructing the process.The bench, led by Justice JB Pardiwala, described the rise in dog bite cases and rabies deaths as a 'serious situation' and said 'no sentiments of any nature can be involved' in addressing the menace. 'Infants and young children, not at any cost, should fall prey to rabies,' it observed.Animal welfare organisations have strongly opposed the order, warning that mass removals are against science, law and global best practices. 'Communities think of neighbourhood dogs as family, and the displacement and jailing of dogs is not scientific and has NEVER worked,' said Dr Mini Aravindan, Senior Director of Veterinary Affairs at PETA India.Bharati Ramachandran, CEO of the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations (FIAPO), called the move 'a shocking judgment' and cautioned that displacing stable, vaccinated dog populations could worsen rabies risk due to the 'vacuum effect.' Both PETA and FIAPO have urged the government to focus on mass sterilisation and vaccination drives instead.The order has also sparked protests. On Tuesday, Delhi Police filed a case against several animal rights activists who gathered at India Gate to demonstrate against the ruling. Officials cited security restrictions ahead of Independence Day.The controversy has drawn reactions from Bollywood too, with Janhvi Kapoor, Varun Dhawan, Vir Das, Varun Grover and Chinmayi Sripaada criticising the ruling on social media, some describing it as a 'death sentence for all dogs.'Meanwhile, sources in Municipal Corporation of Delhi admitted that the capital's current infrastructure is far from adequate to meet the target.According to sources, Delhi has no dedicated dog shelters and only 20 sterilisation centres with a combined capacity to operate on about 2,500 dogs at a time. To control the population, at least 70 per cent of the stray dog population has to be sterilised, but the present facilities will not likely allow for that target to be met, sources added.- EndsMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
POCSO and age of consent debate in India: Debunking the misconceptions
The recent debates around the alleged reduction of the age of consent have gripped civil society and social media. Some concerns were raised in an article by Flavia Agnes and Audrey Dmello ('The faultlines of consent', IE, August 9). The purpose of this article is to clear some misconceptions and to clarify what has been argued before the Supreme Court (this writer is assisting Indira Jaising, the amicus curiae, before the SC on the matter). While propriety demands that the case be argued before the Court, and not in the court of public opinion, I feel it necessary to clarify some of the arguments so that sensationalism can be avoided. The case before the Supreme Court is about the age of consent. It has been pegged at 18 years by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual activity between children between the age of 16-18, since it is against the order of puberty at which point sexual awareness is attained. The case which has been pleaded here is not a blanket reduction of the age of consent, but to decriminalise consensual intercourse between children aged 16-18 by introducing a close-in-age exception. In recent times, there have been several cases of non-exploitative, non-abusive consensual relationships being criminalised. A significant proportion of cases being registered under the POCSO Act pertain to situations where girls leave their homes with their romantic partners, and cases of consensual sexual activity between teenagers. These cases — usually with a missing persons complaint or an FIR for rape — are usually initiated by the parents of these girls. After the teenage boy has been put through the rigmarole of the criminal process, branded as a criminal, the case usually falls on its face, with the girl turning hostile. The case is subsequently quashed, or the accused is released on bail. Such criminalisation is also much more common in cases of inter-caste and inter-faith relationships, where members of disadvantaged communities and religious minorities often find themselves at the wrong side of the law. Sometimes, while the Supreme Court has refused to quash the cases, they have stopped the execution of sentences by using its powers under Article 142. Under common law, minors are now understood to have evolving capacities to make decisions, including decisions about their life and death. In India, the age of majority is understood as outlined in the Abduction Acts of England. However, in England, this understanding has changed. Post R v D [1984] 2 All ER 449, the current law, even in England, for medical decisions, recognises that the minor has sufficient understanding and intelligence to make a decision and that is not to be determined by reference to any judicially fixed age limit. From 1940 to 2012, the age of consent was 16 years. It was raised to 18, post the December 2012 gangrape case. No reasons were provided for this change, either by the Verma Committee or on the floor of either House when POCSO was brought in or during the 2013 Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act. Agnes and D'mello argue that 16 is an arbitrary age. But so is 18. Sixteen years, as the age of consent, was the law for over eight decades, and it recognised that teenagers are sexually active. This criminalisation of consensual relationships, read along with the mandatory reporting provision, has also deterred teenagers from accessing sexual and reproductive health services and put their lives at risk. The National Health and Family Survey-5 noted that 45 per cent of teenage girls in the age group of 15-19 have had sexual intercourse. How can one protect the health interests of teenagers while also ensuring that abusive relationships are not decriminalised? The answer to this is simply allowing for a close-in-age exception to POCSO and IPC, in cases where relationships are non-abusive and non-exploitative. Agnes and Dmello seem to read this as a defense of abusive incestuous relationships, or relationships where the abuser is in a position of care or authority over the child. Such abuse is not defensible, and the arguments attack a fabricated imagination of the arguments advanced in Court. On a fundamental principle of criminal law, there cannot be mens rea when the relationship is non-exploitative and non-abusive, and thus, trying to criminalise such a relationship serves no legitimate purpose. This is a case of balancing competing interests. Different people may come to different conclusions as to how such interests can be balanced. It is equally true that child sexual abuse is a serious problem, and POCSO addresses the issue of child sexual abuse. I say this as someone who was sexually abused as a child. However, to be so rigid in the application of law, and to use the law in a manner so as to curtail the fundamental right to access to healthcare, and personal autonomy of children between the ages of 16 to 18, who are otherwise capable of giving consent and are involved in consensual sexual relationships, is a fool's errand. The writer is a bioethicist and a lawyer at the Supreme Court
Mint
38 minutes ago
- Mint
Rahul Gandhi tells Pune court of life threat, cites Savarkar lineage of complainant
Rahul Gandhi, on Monday told a Pune court that he faces threat to life in view of his recent political battles and the lineage of complainant Satyaki Savarkar in the defamation case against him. The Congress leader and Lok Sabha Opposition leader also sought 'preventive protection' by State, reported Bar and Bench. He urged the court, which is hearing the defamation case, to acknowledge what he has described as 'grave apprehensions' to his safety and to the fairness of proceedings in the case. The defamation case was filed by Satyaki Savarkar after Rahul Gandhi, in a March 2023 speech in London, cited Savarkar's writings in which Savarkar and others purportedly assaulted a Muslim man and described it as 'pleasurable.' Satyaki Savarkar has denied that any such account exists in Savarkar's published works, arguing the remarks were false, misleading, and defamatory. He has sought Gandhi's conviction under Section 500 IPC and compensation under Section 357 CrPC. The Court will next hear the matter on September 10. (This is a developing story. Keep checking for more updates)
India.com
40 minutes ago
- India.com
If not Aadhaar-PAN or Voter ID then what? Here's how you can prove your citizenship; documents like...
File/Representational New Delhi: In a significant development amid the nation-wide discussions on the Special Intensive Revisions (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, the Supreme Court has remarked that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is correct in asserting that an Aadhaar card does not constitute conclusive proof of citizenship. In the recent development, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has stated that the inclusion or exclusion of citizens and non-citizens from the electoral rolls lies within the mandate of the poll body. With the supreme court observation, a buzz regarding the criteria or documents required to prove citizenship are also gaining significance. Why Aadhaar cannot be accepted as proof of citizenship? 'The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified,' it remarked. During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the SIR process could lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of vulnerable citizens, especially those unable to submit the required forms. Sibal argued that most of the enlisted documents are not available to people in Bihar. Earlier, the Bombay High Court also made it clear that Aadhar card, PAN card or Voter ID card are only identity cards or documents to avail the benefits of services and one does not become a citizen of India with the availability of these cards. How can anyone prove citizenship? Citizenship is a special legal status granted by a country, giving people rights like legal protection, employment, and contesting elections. Notably, Citizenship in India, governed by the Citizenship Act 1955, cannot be proved with Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID or Ration Card. What to do if you don't have Aadhaar-PAN or Voter ID? If you don't have Aadhaar-PAN or Voter ID, documents like a birth certificate or domicile certificate serve as proof as a proof of citizenship. If you don't have a birth certificate, you can be obtain it from the Gram Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, and if unavailable, a 'non-availability' certificate must be issued first. Also, a domicile certificate, issued by the state government after three years of residence, can also prove citizenship. (With inputs from agencies)
