
SC's verdict on street dogs generates more questions than answers, provides no solutions
The SC has ordered civic authorities in Delhi to move eight lakh dogs from the streets. It has asked them to start work on shelters for 5,000-6,000 dogs in six to eight weeks. By all accounts, that will be a tough ask in a city where resource constraints and lack of executive will have made the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules — they mandate in situ sterilisation and vaccination of stray dogs — a virtual non-starter. The costs of building such centres, acquiring land, and training professionals to look after the animals were apparently not serious concerns for the Bench. 'How to do it is for the authorities to look into,' it said.
At least two SC verdicts have upheld the ABC Rules. Its critics, however, complain that these rules get in the way of public safety. By engaging with such arguments, analysing its earlier verdicts and giving a patient hearing to the ABC supporters, the Court could have paved the way for a less polarised debate — and ultimately laid the ground for more effective street dog management protocols. It also did not cast its eye on glaring data discrepancies on annual rabies cases in the country — 20,000, according to the WHO; about 50, according to government replies in Parliament. The Bench, instead, chose to dismiss the ABC Rules summarily. The furore following the verdict suggests that the Court may have stoked many more fires than it extinguished.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Stray dogs row in Supreme Court: Bench slams civic inaction for NCR menace; reserves order after clash over lack of shelters, ABC rule violations
The Supreme Court is grappling with the contentious issue of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR. A three-judge bench has reserved its order after hearing arguments for and against a directive to remove all stray dogs. NEW DELHI: There was no resolution on Thursday of the emotionally charged dispute over a two-judge Supreme Court bench's order to remove all stray dogs from the streets of the Capital and the NCR region, with a three-judge bench of the court reserving its order after a high-wattage hearing which saw the rights of humans being pitted against those of animals. A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria blamed the inaction and inefficiency of the local authorities in implementing Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules for the proliferation of stray dogs on the streets of NCR. Chief Justice of India B R Gavai had constituted a three-judge bench in response to strong protests against the order passed by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on Tuesday asking the authorities to pick up the strays and pack them off to pounds. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi | Gold Rates Today in Delhi | Silver Rates Today in Delhi Animal rights activists and others have pointed out that the order was drastic and flew in the face of an earlier order of the apex court which said a solution to the problem of stray dogs, whose numbers have swelled, has to be consistent with the ABC rules, which stipulate that the canines removed for sterilisation and vaccination have to be brought back to the localities they inhabited. The high-wattage hearing on Thursday saw the two sides bringing emotive issues of "cruelty towards voiceless" and "vocal minority versus silent suffering majority" into play as solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general Archanan Pathak Dave supporting Tuesday's order faced off with a bevy of top lawyers - Kapil Sibal, A M Singhvi, Sidharth Luthra, K Venugopal, Aman Lekhi, Colin Gonsalves, Sidharth Dave, among others - arrayed on the side of canines. Opposing the plea of animal rights activists, the solicitor general stoutly defended the division bench's order and told the court that innocent humans should not suffer and lose their lives because of dog-bites. "I have seen people posting videos of their eating meat and then claiming to be animal are instances of children dying due to rabies after dog bites. There are videos of dog bites which are so horrific that we cannot see them," Mehta said. Referring to Economic Times reports and WHO statistics, the SG told the bench that 37 lakh dog-bite cases are reported every year, with the annual figure for rabies deaths at about 20,000. "Only four or five species of snakes are poisonous. But we don't keep them at home. Nobody is saying we should kill dogs, but they need to be separated. Kids are not able to play outside as children are getting ravaged and mutilated by stray dogs ," the SG said. Leading the team of advocates, Sibal submitted that the order could not have been passed in this manner without hearing the other side and there weren't enough shelter homes for stray dogs. Removal of stray dogs from streets has to be stayed, as there was a likelihood of their being culled, he said. Singhvi said the order was akin to putting the cart before the horse as there are not enough places to keep the canines, and informed the court that there had been no case of death because of rabies in the last five years. The court reserved its order after hearing both the sides. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Independence Day wishes , messages , and quotes !


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Actor Ramya hails SC's decision to cancel Darshan's bail in Renukaswamy murder case, says ‘all are equal before law'
Actor and former MP Ramya, also known as Divya Spandana, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday to revoke the bail previously granted to actors Darshan and Pavithra Gowda in connection with the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case. She described the ruling as a powerful reminder that justice applies equally to all. Actor Ramya, or otherwise known as Divya Spandana, spoke on the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case and said "all are equal before law." ALSO READ | Actor-politician Divya Spandana on Darshan's arrest: 'You don't go around killing people' Taking to Instagram, Ramya stated, 'The SC judgment today on setting aside bail to Darshan and others in the Renukaswamy murder case sends out a strong message — ALL ARE EQUAL BEFORE LAW.' She also encouraged the public to continue believing in the legal system. 'To the rest of us, I'd like to say - follow due process, keep faith in the justice system - It's long and hard, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. Do not take law into your own hands, justice will be served. Most importantly, stay true to your conscience,' she added. ALSO READ | Actors Darshan, Pavithra back in jail: SC warns against special treatment, 'however big a person may be' Earlier, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan annulled the Karnataka High Court's bail order, citing serious procedural flaws. The apex court ordered immediate arrest of all accused, including Darshan and Gowda and instructed the lower court to fast-track the trial. Darshan and Pavithra Gowda are among several individuals charged with the brutal killing of 33-year-old Renukaswamy, who allegedly sent offensive messages to Gowda. Police reports indicate that the victim was abducted, detained in a shed in Bengaluru for three days in June 2024, subjected to torture, and later found dead in a nearby drain. ALSO READ | 'Our faith in the judiciary…': Renukaswamy's father lauds SC's decision to revoke actor Darshan's bail - Report Following the Supreme Court's directive, authorities swiftly re-arrested both Darshan and Gowda.


Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Push for transparency: What Supreme Court's order on Bihar SIR says
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued an interim order directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to make available online a searchable list of approximately 65 lakh voter names omitted from the draft electoral roll for Bihar, along with reasons for deletion, such as death, migration, and duplication. The interim order pushes for greater transparency in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar, and partially addresses the contentious issue of including Aadhaar as a valid proof of identity and residence in the process. Here's a breakdown of the order, and its impact on the SIR. With the state set to head to polls in November, the ECI announced the Bihar SIR late in June. It said that demographic changes in the last 20 years meant that current electoral rolls contained many 'repeated entries', and 'the situation [warranted] an intensive verification drive to verify each person before enrolment as an elector'. Soon after this announcement, multiple petitioners challenged the SIR on both substantive and procedural grounds. The substantive grounds included questions on the ECI's powers to conduct such an exercise. The procedural grounds pertain ed to the modalities of conducting the SIR, including whether the 11 documents notified by the ECI to prove 'citizenship' were valid; whether the 2003 voter list could be a valid cut-off date for inclusion; and whether Aadhaar could be excluded as a valid proof of identity for inclusion in the voters' list. These issues are yet to be determined by the apex court. However, in oral observations, the SC has indicated that ECI has the power to conduct such an exercise. This can also be inferred from the fact that the SC has allowed the SIR to continue. 'You (ECI) are exercising the power of intensive survey as a preliminary enquiry into every voter identity. The powers [to do so] are prima facie traceable, so we do not wish to interdict…but your manner has to be reasonable, has to give certain comfort to citizens,' Justice Joymalya Bagchi, one of the two judges hearing the case, said. This essentially leaves the procedural aspects of conducting the SIR still open for adjudication. The ECI had, in its affidavit, told the SC that it was not required by law to publish a separate list of electors removed from the draft electoral rolls or to provide reasons for their non-inclusion. This was in opposition to a plea by the Association for Democratic Reforms seeking the release of names and details of the 65 lakh electors who did not make it to the draft published on August 1. The ECI, in court, cited apprehensions that political parties might aggregate the data and that the publication could be a violation of the fundamental right to privacy. The SC has, however, pushed back on this argument, underlining a citizen's fundamental right to know why he or she has been deleted from the voter list. The court has directed the ECI to publish lists in which one can search by entering the EPIC number whether a voter has been deleted, and the reasons for such deletion. The lists are required to be booth-wise, and also have to be displayed on the notice board of respective Panchayat Bhavans and offices of the Block Development Officer or Panchayat Officers. This essentially enables individuals and political parties to check if a voter from the constituency has been removed from the rolls, and whether this exclusion is justified. As per the ECI, 7.24 crore of the 7.90 crore total voters have filled their forms in the SIR process. Of the 65 lakh individuals who have not been included in the draft rolls, 22 lakh are dead, the ECI said. The ECI had said that those whose names have not been included in the draft roll can submit Form 6, the ECI's form for registration of new electors, by September 1. Incidentally, Form 6 allows Aadhaar, both as proof of identity and residence for enrolment. The Electoral Registration Officer verifies the information submitted in Form 6, and enrols a new voter. In its interim order, the SC directed that 'aggrieved persons may submit their claims along with a copy of their Aadhaar Card'. That said, whether this means that Aadhaar can be a valid document to be included as a voter again is still unclear. In its oral observations, the court said that 'these are issues for the next stage'. The court will hear the case again on August 22, and the issue of how to handle unfair exclusions is likely to be brought up then.