‘Why don't you feed them at your own home?': Supreme Court to Noida woman in dog-feeding dispute
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal moved by one Reema Shah challenging a March 3 order of the Allahabad High Court.
As soon as it took up the matter on Tuesday, the bench asked Shah's counsel, 'Should we leave every lane, every road open for these large-hearted people?'
Making its displeasure evident, the court added, 'There is all space for these animals, no space for humans.' It then asked, 'Why don't you (appellant) feed them in your own house? Nobody is stopping you.'
The counsel submitted that the appellant was subjected to harassment and was unable to feed community dogs, in accordance with animal birth control rules, which puts onus on resident welfare associations, apartment owner associations, and local body representatives to make necessary arrangements for the feeding of community animals residing in their premises or their areas.
This did not go down well with the bench, which said, 'We give you a suggestion to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house.'
The counsel then said the municipality was creating feeding places in Greater Noida but not in Noida.
When the counsel submitted that feeding spots could be set up in places not frequented by people, the bench asked him when he goes for cycling in the morning. It then added, 'Try doing it (cycle) and see what happens.'
As the counsel said, he goes on morning walks and sees several dogs, the bench said that 'morning walkers are also at risk' and 'cycle riders and two-wheelers are at greater risk'.
Shah had earlier approached the HC seeking directions to the Noida Authority and others not to harass her, other feeders as well as any other institution that feeds community dogs and animals, both in her society and outside it in Noida. She had also sought directions to implement the provisions of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, and cautioned, keeping in view the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Disposing of the petition, the HC had said, 'While protection of street dogs would be warranted in accordance with the provisions of the applicable statute, at the same time, the authorities will have to bear in mind the concern of the common man, such that their movement on streets are not hampered by attacks by these street dogs. A balanced approach would be needed such that not only the concern of prevention of animal cruelty is addressed, but at the same time, the interest of the common man is also protected.'
'We expect the authorities of the state to show due sensitivity to the concerns raised in the writ petition and to ensure that necessary steps are taken in public interest to protect the cause raised… and also the concern of the common man in moving on the streets,' it had added.
The court had stressed, 'This observation is necessary because there are many instances of attacks by street dogs on the common man of late, which have resulted in loss of lives and grave inconvenience to pedestrians.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
How villagers fought for an elephant
The rains in August bring joy to Kolhapur, a part of Maharashtra's sugarcane belt. The fields thrive and people get respite from the heat that parches land and spirit. This year, the villages in the area are in mourning. Madhuri, 36, also called Mahadevi, was transferred from her home in Nandani village to Vantara, a wildlife rehabilitation facility run by the Ambani industrialist family, in Jamnagar, Gujarat, over 1,170 km away. Her mahout (elephant handler) Ismail Nidgun, 56, is no longer with her. 'It feels like I have lost my daughter. My days are empty just like this gajshala (elephant home),' Nidgun says. Originally from Davangere in Karnataka, he had been with Madhuri for seven years. Her transfer order came on July 28 after a Supreme Court directive. She was moved from the 1,300-year-old Jain Mutt, the Shree Digambar Jain Atishay Kshetra Vrishabhachal to Vantara, 'Anant Ambani's dream project,' as per information on the website. Anant is one of three children of Reliance chairperson Mukesh Ambani, one of the wealthiest men in the world. On August 3, images began pouring in of thousands of people marching early in the morning, in protest, from Nandani to the Kolhapur District Collectorate, about 40 km away, appealing to get Madhuri back. 'Did Ambani get only our Madhuri to take?' asks Mahavir Jugale, 56, a Nandani-based farmer. Shopkeeper Vijay Teli, 51, in the Gandhi Chowk area, a bustling market in the village, says, 'Mate pasun mula la vegla kela ahe,' (They separated the child from her mother). Whenever the bell rings, we still think she is coming.' Madhuri wore a bell around her neck which would ring each time she ambled along. 'Children used to line up to play with her,' he adds. Everyone has a Madhuri moment to share. Points of view On July 28, the Supreme Court upheld the July 16 Bombay High Court order to transfer the elephant to the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT), a part of Vantara, registered in 2019. Vantara, which describes itself as being committed to 'rescuing, rehabilitating, and protecting endangered species' spans 998 acres. The affidavit filed by Vantara indicates that the facility houses 238 elephants. In the lane adjoining the Mutt, Sushila Kambhoje, 70, says, 'They called Madhuri dangerous and ailing. How could she be dangerous? On the day of her farewell, 2,000 people surrounded her. Did she even hurt a single person? An ailing animal can never be active. They used all the means to take her away.' Sushila, a homemaker, remembers Madhuri from when she was three years old. The elephant, locals say, was brought to the Mutt from the Sakrebailu elephant camp, Shimoga in Karnataka in 1992. The Mutt, which makes decisions on the socio-religious affairs of the Digambar Jain community of a few villages in Maharashtra and Karnataka, has a history of domesticating elephants for the last 400 years, say leaders in the community. Elephants have been part of religious processions, and participate in festivals like Ganeshotsav and Muharram. 'We have treated her as a family member. PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) claims that she is distressed are false,' says the financial manager of the Mutt, Shirish Herwade. He says PETA officials visited the Mutt in 2020 and proposed moving Madhuri to Vantara. 'They offered us a robotic elephant. When the Mutt refused, PETA offered us money and infrastructure development,' he adds. PETA claims that the elephant had 'untreated ailments including foot rot, overgrown nails, abscesses, arthritis and behavioural distress' says an SC-approved high-power committee (HPC) report. The HPC had been set up by the Tripura High Court in November 2022, after a lawyer, Sudipta Nath, had filed a public interest litigation seeking an inquiry into past transfers of elephants to RKTEWT. After the public outcry, the Maharashtra government intervened, holding meetings with a delegation from Kolhapur and the Vantara team. On August 6, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis announced publically, 'Vantara has offered to set up a satellite rehabilitation centre in Nandani and join the Maharashtra government's application in court, requesting the return of Madhuri.' Vantara put out a statement on social media saying, their 'involvement in this matter has been limited to acting strictly in accordance to the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court.' It said Vantara's role was simply as a caretaker to the animal. Vantara proposed a centre in Nandani, which will include a hydrotherapy pond for joint and muscular relief, a larger water body for swimming and natural movement, laser therapy and a treatment room for physical rehabilitation, a covered night shelter, an open space for unrestricted movement without chains, a sand pit, and an on-site veterinary clinic, among other facilities. 'From the beginning these people should have used their specialists in the village itself instead of relocating the elephant,' says Sagar Shambhushete, one of the Mutt's trustees. The Mutt alleges that after the 2020 meeting, PETA started documenting pictures of Madhuri while socialising with the villagers. Between the Mutt and the HPC The Mutt's top authority says on condition of anonymity, 'PETA is less of an animal rights organisation and more of a mediator for big people.' He alleges that PETA joined hands with Vantara, who has collected animals from all over the country. The Jain Mutt had an ownership certificate under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. PETA dismisses the claims, saying it was the decision of HPC. They also say the Mutt has disregarded wildlife protection laws on several occasions. 'The temple was provided an in-person opportunity to make their case at all levels of the process, but failed,' says Khushboo Gupta, Director of Advocacy of PETA, adding this was not the first elephant taken to Vantara from Maharashtra. An elephant from Sangli district's Vita was taken too. The Mutt's stone building, with wooden interior, sees thousands of devotees from across the Kolhapur-Sangli region and from some parts of Karnataka. 'When nothing worked, PETA approached the HPC; they just wanted our elephant at any cost,' says Shambhushete. Former Judge Deepak Verma led the HPC and issued the first order on December 28, 2023. The HPC's June 3 report suggests that PETA India highlighted the need for Madhuri's transfer to a 'scientifically managed sanctuary' such as the RKTEWT, Jamnagar. The Mutt has also alleged that HPC's sub-committee report findings are 'biased' and 'exaggerated', and that PETA's photographic and veterinary material 'lacks context'. The sub-committee, comprising officials from the Forest Department, visited the Mutt premises on June 12, 2024, inspected the facilities, and recommending improvements, including an opportunity for socialisation. The committee also confirmed that the elephant's physical well-being, diet and nutrition were being maintained. After three months, Vivek Khandekar, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), inspected the facility, making observations that the 'elephant's back and toenails are showing good improvement and she is walking properly'. He noted other improvements as well, including a daily walk of 5 to 10 km and a weekly bath in the Panchganga River. A representative of the Mutt says, 'Within three months of the first inspection in June 2024, we implemented all the recommendations made by the team.' Protests echo through the village The hoardings outside Nandani read: 'One signature for Madhuri'. Every corner of the village is plastered with such banners. MLC Satej Patil launched an online signature petition, which received 2,04,421 signatures from across the country. 'We have sent the hard copies to President Droupadi Murmu via post,' he says. Meanwhile, a 'Boycott Jio' movement intensified in Kolhapur with as many as 743 villages participating. The movement, which started on social media, was later spearheaded by former MP and a farmer leader Raju Shetti. He claims, 'At least 2 lakh people ported their Jio numbers to other networks.' Shetti claims PETA offered him ₹2 crore to help convince the Mutt to transfer the elephant. Meanwhile, a letter Shetti had allegedly written in 2018 went viral. It had asked that the Madhuri be shifted to Gadchiroli animal centre until they found a mahout. Shetti says, 'The Mutt approached me then to do something. But we found a mahout in a month. At the time no one was bothered, so why now?' Vantara's involvement The locals and their representatives have also raised concerns over similar notices sent to several mutts in Maharashtra and Karnataka. The villagers ask whether PETA and the HPC are in the business of transferring elephants to Vantara. In Kolhapur's neighbouring district of Sangli, the Ganpati Panchayatan Devasthan Trust in Tasagaon say they received a phone call from a man, who claimed to be a vet with a government facility, offering to provide an unfit certificate to transfer the trust's elephant Gauri to Vantara. 'I asked him to give us a proposal in writing. In the meanwhile, Nandani's issue flared up,' says Rajendra Patwardhan, the president of the trust in Tasagaon, who brought in the elephant in 1998. Patwardhan says similar complaints have been filed against the Karisiddeshwara Mutt in Karnataka's Belagavi district and Mahanteshwar Swami in Raichur. An environmentalist from Bengaluru filed a complaint with the Forest Department concerning the rehabilitation of elephants Padma from Shedbal in Maharashtra, Dhurva from Alakhnur, and Meenika from Bichale. Conservationists see this situation as a government convenience due to limited resources. The Co-Founder of Stripes and Green Earth Foundation, Sagnik Sengupta, said, 'This situation is arising because Vantara offers facilities that can aid elephants in distress, but this could be effective if there are rescue centres across the country. At the same time, the Wildlife Protection Act offers no safeguards for exotic pets. In the absence of government infrastructure, Vantara's resources could fill critical gaps.' Meanwhile, a Bengaluru-based wildlife conservationist, on condition of anonymity, says, 'For the government, private rescue centres are the first choice to save costs. However, handing over exotic animals to private players is not viable.' Edited by Sunalini Mathew
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Only legal heirs liable to maintain childless senior citizens, rules Kerala high court
Kochi: A person who merely possesses the property of a childless senior citizen has no maintenance obligation unless that person is the legal heir or relative of the senior citizen, the high court has held. Only the legal heirs/relatives, as defined under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are responsible for maintaining an elderly person who has no children, a bench of Justices Satish Ninan and P Krishna Kumar clarified. The court was considering an appeal filed by S Sheeja from Thiruvananthapuram challenging a single bench order that upheld the maintenance appellate tribunal's decision directing her to maintain an elderly woman, on the ground that she was in possession of land the woman had gifted to her nephew, who was Sheeja's late husband. The elderly woman had executed the gift deed in favour of her nephew in 1992, as she had no children. The nephew died in 2008, and the property devolved on his wife, Sheeja. The senior citizen then claimed that Sheeja was bound to maintain her under Section 4(4) of the Act, leading to the litigation. Both the tribunal and appellate tribunal accepted the senior woman's contention, and the single bench also upheld that decision. The division bench, however, noted that under the Act, the maintenance obligation of a childless senior citizen lies with their 'relative', defined as a legal heir who must have sufficient means to maintain the senior citizen and must be in possession of the senior citizen's property or stand to inherit it. The court clarified that a person who is not a legal heir of the senior citizen cannot be treated as a 'relative' under the Act merely because they are in possession of the property. In this case, the bench found that Sheeja was not a legal heir/relative of the senior citizen and therefore had no maintenance obligation under the Act. Accordingly, the orders of the tribunal, appellate tribunal and single bench were quashed. However, HC left it open to the senior citizen to pursue any other remedies available under law for an alleged violation of the terms of the gift deed. 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 Raksha Bandhan wishes , messages and quotes !
News18
a day ago
- News18
Outnumbered And Low On Fuel, This MiG-21 Indian Pilot Turned The Tables On 3 Pak Jets
Last Updated: After a victorious dogfight, Vikram Shah's MiG-21 had barely any fuel left. He climbed, shut the engine, and glided to base, landing safely as the last drop of fuel ran out On the afternoon of December 16, 1971, during the Indo-Pakistan war, Flight Lieutenant Vikram Samar Shah of the Indian Air Force found himself facing a critical situation. While flying a MiG-21 at an altitude of thousands of feet, Shah was preparing to return to base after completing his mission. Suddenly, three supersonic fighter jets from the Pakistan Air Force surrounded his MiG-21, with one on either side and the third above. The MiG-21's alarming system began to signal, alerting Flight Lieutenant Shah to a dire situation: his fuel was nearly depleted. With only a few minutes left to reach the base, a crash seemed imminent. Faced with a perilous predicament, Shah made a bold decision. Rather than retreat, he chose to confront the enemy head-on. Shah engaged the engine of his fighter jet at full throttle, executing a sharp turn and disappearing into the sky's depths. This intense encounter occurred as Indian Air Force's Marut fighters were on a mission to attack enemy positions in Naya Chor and Mirpur, with Shah and Flying Officer Dinesh Arora of the 29th Squadron tasked with providing cover. Initially, the mission proceeded as planned until Shah spotted a Pakistani Cessna Bird Dog fighter jet. He instructed Arora to stay with the Marut fighters while he advanced to engage the enemy. After neutralising the Pakistani Cessna, Shah prepared to return to base when he was surrounded by Pakistani MiG-19 fighters. With his fuel running dangerously low, Shah disappeared into the sky once more. Reappearing unexpectedly, Shah manoeuvred his MiG-21, scattering the Pakistani jets. The precision of his strategy caused two pilots to lose coordination, prompting them to flee. With only one Pakistani fighter remaining, Shah capitalised on a minor error by the enemy pilot, targeting him with a missile. The MiG-19 crashed into the desert. Despite his triumphant dogfight, Shah's aircraft had barely enough fuel to reach the base. In a final act of ingenuity, he ascended to a certain height, turned off the engine, and glided towards the base. His MiG-21 landed safely just as the last drop of fuel was exhausted. Flight Lieutenant Shah's exceptional skills and bravery not only decimated the enemy but also ensured the safe return of his aircraft. For his outstanding performance, he was awarded the Vayu Sena Medal and Vir Chakra. view comments First Published: 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.
