RSS chief calls for population control to address stray dog issue
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has weighed in on the stray dog issue in Delhi-NCR, advocating for population control through sterilization and vaccination, rather than relocation to shelters. His statement counters a recent Supreme Court directive ordering the permanent relocation of strays. Bhagwat emphasized balancing human needs with animal rights and ecological conservation, referencing traditional cattle-rearing practices.
ANI RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat (File photo) Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat has said that the stray dog problem in Delhi-NCR should be resolved by regulating their population rather than shifting them to shelters, reported TOI. His remarks come days after the Supreme Court, on August 11, directed authorities in the region to permanently relocate all strays to shelters.Speaking at a religious congregation at the Jawaharlal Nehru Indoor Stadium in Cuttack on Thursday, Bhagwat, who has a background in veterinary science, said, '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.' 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.'
Call for balance with nature
Bhagwat also referred to traditional cattle-rearing practices, noting that while milking a cow, a portion 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,' TOI said.
Debate over SC directive
The Supreme Court's August 11 order has triggered criticism from politicians, animal rights groups and scientists, who say the directive runs contrary to the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2023. On Wednesday, Chief Justice of India B R Gavai reassigned the suo motu case to a larger three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath, which began fresh hearings on Thursday.
(With inputs from TOI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘We will do anything to save stray dogs': Protesters urge authorities to step up sterilisation in Delhi
Around 300 protesters from Delhi and nearby areas protested amid heavy police barricading on the road in front of Ramlila Maidan on Sunday against the Supreme Court's August 11 directive on relocation of dogs of Delhi-NCR to shelters. The top court's intervention came just days after the directive by a two-judge bench sparked massive outrage. The protesters, who alleged that permission to hold demonstrations inside the ground was cancelled at the last moment, marched till the 108-foot Hanuman statue in Karol Bagh after protesting for over two hours. Police personnel stationed in the area, however, claimed that multiple applications had been received, but not a single permission was granted. 'Yesterday, we received multiple calls from police officers who told us that we could protest and that we would be provided security, but when we arrived today (Sunday), they denied permission,' says Rishi Sharma, founder of Bharat Mata Rescue Animal Trust. Ashima Sharma (50), an animal feeder and caregiver, claimed that people want to work with the authorities, but they do not respond. 'We call the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to urge officials to pick up dogs for sterilisation, but they do not respond. If they do, they say: 'The driver is on leave'. But now, they are picking dogs during the night. How?' Another dog feeder from Shahdara's Ashok Nagar, Suraj Chaudhary (46), said that he has got 22 stray dogs sterilised. He has fed them and taken care of their medical bills for 27 years now. 'We will do anything to save our dogs, but I won't let even one dog get picked up from my colony. They are my family,' he said, adding that he was ready to cooperate with the authorities. During Sunday's protest, people also held placards. Some read: 'Stop relocation, start vaccination and sterilisation,' 'Awareness of rabies is needed, not elimination of an entire species,' 'Have compassion for living creatures'. Some protesters used megaphones to raise slogans like: 'Speak with us, CM Rekha Gupta,' 'No dog, no vote'. Sheila Devi in her forties from Gol Market who feeds 8 stray dogs hails the apex court decision as wrong. 'They should follow the ABC rule rather than mass relocating them. They bite only when they are hungry or somebody teases them.' Soon she is interrupted by another protester who says why not videos of puppies being thrown into drains are getting viral, citing they are also kids. 'There is no clue of any shelter, which place, at least tell us where you all are taking them?' she asks. Ambika Shukla, Trustee of People from Animals says dogs have co- existed along with humans. ' 'These dogs have existed here in many areas and lived here even before these colonies were built. Now that people have moved in, the same dogs are suddenly seen as a nuisance — why should they be gotten rid of ?' she questions adding that a dog bites in a state of fear as proven by animal behavioural experts. Shukla adds, 'If the world's apex body WHO clearly states that ABC method is the only proven way to curb dog populations, bites and rabies, why ignore the experts and impose our own uninformed views?' adding that the problem lies in poor implementation of the existing policies. She says that the authorities need to rope in the community feeders, 'the feeder knows every dog. Come and stand at the start of a gully, the feeder can bring every dog. This is more systematic, and efficient. The feeders are an asset, not an adversary,' she says, adding that every dog bite needs to be assessed before categorising it as a case of dog bite.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
President, not SC, decides when to seek court's opinion: Centre
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Objecting to the judgment mandating the President to seek Supreme Court's opinion on constitutionality of bills, Union govt has said the judiciary cannot dictate to the President how and when to exercise her unfettered discretion to seek the apex court's opinion and on which issues. Faulting the April 8 judgment of a bench of justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, the Centre, through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, said a plain reading of the President's powers under Article 143 "shows that an absolute discretion lies with the President to seek advice. The term 'consult' means the act of asking for advice and indicates that the President is not bound to do so". The judgment had advised the President that whenever a governor reserves a bill for her consideration on the ground that it is patently unconstitutional, the President ought to make a reference to SC under Article 143 "as a measure of prudence", given that it is for the apex court to determine the constitutionality and legality of orders and laws. Ahead of Tuesday's hearing on the Presidential Reference before a five-judge bench led by CJI B R Gavai, the Centre said, "Any constitutional proposition of law that there exists a constitutional expectation for the President to refer every reserved bill to the Supreme Court is contrary to the constitutional scheme". It gave three reasons to repudiate the SC bench's proposition to this effect: Articles 200 and 201 envisage that the President will apply his/her own mind to decide whether to assent or withhold assent, and these provisions do not mention any role of Supreme Court under Article 143. Such a proposition presupposes that only the judiciary can decide questions related to the Constitution, whereas the Constitution contemplates that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary each is competent and authorised to interpret the Constitution within their own domain. The legislature considers the constitutionality of a bill during debate, the President or governor applies their mind while deciding whether to withhold, assent or refer a bill and the judiciary decides the legality of an Act in appropriate proceedings. Such a proposition converts a constitutional prerogative into a judicial mandate in the nature of a continuing mandamus, which is impermissible. Union govt said the Constitution does not empower the judiciary to examine the contents of a bill that is yet to become a legislation, sans assent granted by a governor or the President. "The constitutional courts cannot undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a pending bill. It is not possible for the constitutional courts to look behind the contents of the bill at a stage wherein it is a pending decision before the governor and adjudicate whether it requires a reference to the President or not," it said. It further said a state is barred from filing petitions under Article 32, which is a preserve of citizens to seek redress of violations of their fundamental rights by directly approaching the SC. For any dispute between the state and the Centre, the parties concerned need to approach the SC through a suit under Article 131. The Centre held, "A state govt cannot file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against essentially the governor of the state..."
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
ECI begins uploading omitted voter names in Bihar
Synopsis Following a Supreme Court directive, the Election Commission of India has begun publishing lists of voters omitted from draft electoral rolls in Bihar, categorized as Absentee, Shifted, Dead, or already registered. These lists are available on district electoral officer websites, enabling verification and objection filing with Aadhaar proof. PTI New Delhi: Four days after the Supreme Court's directive, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has started publishing the names of voters omitted from the draft electoral rolls following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar. The lists are now available on the websites of the respective district electoral officers (DEOs).The omitted voters are broadly categorised as Absentee, Shifted, and Dead (ASD), along with those marked as "Pahle Se Panjikrit" (already registered). The inclusion of EPIC numbers has made it easier for genuine voters to search for their names. As per the information available, anyone dissatisfied with their omission can file an objection, accompanied by a copy of their Aadhaar card. Initial data from Bihar's Seemanchal region shows that the number of omitted voters under each category varies significantly from booth to example, at a booth located at Madhya Vidyalaya, Dalmalpur, Uttar Bhag, in the Amour Assembly seat (Purnea district, part of Muslim-dominated Kishanganj Lok Sabha seat), out of 228 total voters, 117 have been listed under Absentee, 65 under Dead, 39 under Shifted, and 7 under Already at Madhya Vidyalaya, Champa Bareli booth in the Baisi Assembly seat, 76 voters have been marked as omitted - 38 as Absentee, 22 as Shifted, 15 as Dead, and 1 as Already Registered. At Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Madhbani (Uttar Bhag), located in the Purnea Assembly seat, 161 voters were listed, with 40 marked as Absentee, 82 as Dead, and 35 as opposition parties had demanded that the ECI release separate lists of voters in each of the ASD categories who were omitted from the rolls."It will now be easier for us to verify which voters do not fall under the ASD categories in different booths. There are living voters who have been marked as dead," said Abhay Sinha, Purnea district general secretary of RJD, the state's main opposition the publication of the omitted voters' list, Sinha added that the RJD's BLA 2 representatives, stationed across various booths, will now actively verify the omissions. "We have very little time for this task. We may request the ECI to extend the deadline for submission of objections and claims," he said.
