After Delhi, Rajasthan Court Orders Removal Of Stray Dogs
This comes after the Supreme Court on Monday ordered all stray dogs to be removed from Delhi-NCR localities following repeated instances of dog bites leading to deaths. The order extends to Noida, Gurugram and Ghaziabad.
On August 11, the Rajasthan High Court directed municipal bodies to remove stray dogs and other animals from city roads while ensuring that minimum physical harm is caused to them.
The court clarified that anyone who comes in the way of the municipal bodies from removing stray animals from the roads/colonies/public paths, will face action. Municipal officials and employees have been given a free hand to act, including lodging First Information Report (FIR) against people coming in the way of their work, obstructing public servants from performing their duties.
A division bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Ravi Chirania, while issuing a slew of directions, said, "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. 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."
Immediate action is sought from Jodhpur Municipal Corporation in removing stray animals from the premises of AIIMS, Jodhpur and the district court - the two places that witness heavy footfall.
The National Highways Authority and the State Highways Authority is directed to regularly patrol highways and ensure free vehicular movements.
The court also asked the Municipal Corporation to release numbers or email addresses for citizens to lodge complaints against stray animals.
In case any citizen wants to feed stray animals, they shall do so at the shelter home or cattle ponds, the court added.
"We expect from the general public that if due to their sentiments or religious believes or for love towards the animals, they want to feed them or offer food or take care of them, then they shall perform such activities at dog shelters and cattle ponds/ Gaushalas maintained by the Municipalities or private individual/organization," the court said.
The Additional Advocate General (AAG) has been asked to file a detailed report on the condition and maintenance of dog shelters and cattle ponds.
The matter is listed next for September 8.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
24 minutes ago
- Hans India
SIR appears to be trust deficit issue: SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday called the Bihar special intensive revision (SIR) row "largely a trust deficit issue' as the Election Commission of India (ECI) claimed roughly 6.5 crore people of the total 7.9 crore voting population didn't have to file any documents for them or their parents featured in the 2003 electoral roll. The top court is hearing a batch of pleas against the Election Commission electoral roll revision exercise in Bihar. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing remarked it "largely appears to be a case of trust deficit, nothing else' as it questioned the petitioners challenging the EC's June 24 decision of conducting the SIR on the ground that it would disenfranchise one crore voters. "If out of 7.9 crore voters, 7.24 crore voters responded to the SIR, it demolishes theory of one crore voters missing or disenfranchised," the bench told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioner and RJD leader Manoj Jha. The top court also agreed with the EC decision to not accept Aadhaar and voter cards as conclusive proof of citizenship in the ongoing exercise and said it has to be supported by other documents. Sibal contended that despite residents holding Aadhaar, ration and EPIC cards, officials refused to accept the documents. "Is it your argument that people who have no documents but are in Bihar and therefore he should be considered as a voter of the state. That can be allowed. He has to show or submit some documents (sic)," the bench said. When Sibal said people were struggling to find birth certificates and other documents of their parents, Justice Kant said, "It is a very sweeping statement that in Bihar nobody has the documents. If this happens in Bihar, then what will happen in other parts of the country?" Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi and advocate Prashant Bhushan, who were representing different political parties, also questioned the timeline for the completion of the exercise and the data of 65 lakh voters who were declared as dead or migrated or registered in other constituencies. Political activist Yogendra Yadav, who addressed the court in person, questioned the data given by the poll panel and said instead of 7.9 crore voters there was total adult population of 8.18 crore and the design of SIR exercise was to delete the voters. "They (EC) were not able to find any individual whose name was added and the booth level officers visited house to house for deletion of names," Yadav said, calling it a case of "total disenfranchisement". Sibal during the hearing said while in one constituency, contrary to the poll panel's claims, 12 people declared dead were found alive, in another instance alive persons were declared dead. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the poll panel, said the exercise of such a nature was "bound to have some defects here and there at the draft stage" and to claim dead persons were declared alive and alive as dead could always be corrected as it was only a draft roll. The bench in the beginning of the hearing told the ECI to "be ready" with facts and figures for it would be question over the number of voters before the exercise commenced; number of dead before and now aside from other relevant details. The hearing would resume on Wednesday. On July 29, terming the election commission a constitutional authority deemed to act in accordance with law, the top court said it will step in immediately if there is "mass exclusion" in the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar. The draft roll was published on August 1 and the final roll is scheduled to be published on September 30 amid Opposition claims that the ongoing exercise will deprive crores of eligible citizens from their right to vote. On July 10, the top court asked the EC to consider Aadhaar, voter ID and ration cards as valid documents as it allowed the poll panel to continue with its exercise in Bihar. The EC affidavit has justified its ongoing SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, saying it adds to the purity of the election by "weeding out ineligible persons" from the electoral rolls. Beside RJD MP Jha and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Congress' K C Venugopal, Supriya Sule from the Sharad Pawar NCP faction, D Raja from Communist Party of India, Harinder Singh Malik from Samajwadi Party, Arvind Sawant from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray), Sarfraz Ahmed from Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and Dipankar Bhattacharya of CPI (ML) have jointly moved the top court challenging the June 24 decision of the election commission. Several other civil society organisations like PUCL, NGO Association of Democratic Reforms and activists like Yogendra Yadav have moved the top court against the EC order.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
If lawyer commits an offence, no exceptions should apply, SG Tushar Mehta tells Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its decision on the question whether lawyers can be summoned by probe agencies for their legal opinion while investigating their clients. A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria was hearing a suo motu case on summoning of 2 senior advocates by probe agencies while representing clients in cases. Supreme Court Bar Association president and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh referred to the 2005 judgment in the Jacob Mathew case, which dealt with FIRs against doctors in medical negligence cases and mandated a preliminary examination by an expert committee comprising doctors before registration of FIR. Singh said it can similarly be laid down that lawyers can be summoned only after approval of a magistrate court. Attorney General R Venkataramani said it will amount to giving a 'long rope. That may not be required'. He said he will submit his views including 'where the line should be drawn'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he should never be called for giving a professional opinion. He said that if a lawyer commits an offence, no exceptions should apply. Agreeing, the CJI said, 'You were referring to a lawyer advising how to dispose of a dead body or fabricate evidence. That will be covered by section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence).' On the suggestion for a court approval to issue summons to lawyers, the SG said, 'Some separate regime being provided for one class of people may not withstand Article 14.' The CJI, however, pointed out that the ruling in the Jacob Mathew case also creates a separate class and asked the SG, 'Have you sought a review of the judgement?' Mehta said he was not opposing the decision in Jacob Mathew. In a note submitted to the court, the SG said, 'Whatsoever. It is unequivocally submitted that the attorney-client privilege is an important and one of the most sacrosanct principles of law and must remain so.' 'The core objective of attorney-client privilege is to promote open and frank communication, ensuring that litigants can candidly disclose all relevant information to their lawyers without fear of subsequent compelled disclosure. This uninhibited exchange is vital for advocate/lawyers to provide proper legal advice, which in turn encourages compliance with the law and facilitates effective legal representation. This protection encourages transparency in the legal advice process, fosters respect for the rule of law, and enhances the adversarial system by ensuring that parties can prepare their cases without fear. It is pertinent to note that this privilege is to protect the litigants and at the same time, confers a qualified privilege to the lawyers.' Mehta said 'lawyer's privilege of not disclosing his communication with his client is a recognised statutory right under Sections 126-129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [now repealed] and continues to be so under Sections 132-134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023'. He added that 'if a lawyer has participated in any act which amounts to or is a subject matter of an offence, beyond his professional duty, the same law which applies to others will apply to lawyers also'.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
40 protestors detained for marching towards Parliament, let off
At least 40 people were detained on Tuesday afternoon after a group of dog lovers gathered near the Hanuman Mandir at Delhi's Connaught Place to protest against the Supreme Court order directing removal of all stray dogs from the streets of Delhi-NCR. This is the second day in a row that animal activists have been detained for protesting against the order. Protestors were detained at Civil Lines police station and Model Town police station on Tuesday after they allegedly began marching towards the Parliament. They were subsequently released around 7-8 pm, said police, adding that no case has been registered so far. Police said Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has been imposed near Parliament, and no gathering is allowed ahead of Independence Day and during the House's ongoing Monsoon Session. The Delhi Police had earlier detained and later booked 27 people late Monday for holding a protest earlier in the day against the SC order. A group of animal rights activists had given a call for a protest at Kartavya Path on Monday evening. 'We want the dogs to be protected. There are no shelter homes to accommodate so many dogs. In the end, they will throw all the dogs outside Delhi, where they will die,' a caregiver told mediapersons while being escorted away by the police. 'As many as 27 people who gathered at Kartavya Path to protest were detained on Monday evening. They were later booked for violating the prohibitory orders under Section 223 (offense of disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Kartavya Path police station,' an officer said, adding that those booked did not take permission to hold the protest. In Gurgaon, a peaceful demonstration was held at Galleria Market on Tuesday evening to protest SC order. Dozens showed up despite it being a weekday, said participants. Sapna Dutt (63), a Gurgaon-based yoga teacher, who was at the protest, said, 'We don't want animals on the streets, even dogs don't want to be on the roads. Mass sterilisations should have been held decades ago, but it wasn't done.' Sudhir Sachdeva (53), founder of Delhi-based Stand for Animals told The Indian Express, 'The centres identified in NCR will not be sufficient. If correct measures towards vaccination and sterilisation are taken, rabies and overpopulation of stray dogs can be contained. But this order of removing them from the streets is not right, and not as per law (ABC rules).'
