Will look into it: Chief Justice amid fury over Supreme Court's stray dog order
To this, CJI BR Gavai said an order had already been passed on the issue, referring to the recent judgment where the Supreme Court directed civic bodies to round up all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR within eight weeks and send them to shelters.The Chief Justice said he would look into it, but the Supreme Court has not listed it for hearing yet.WHAT SUPREME COURT SAID ON STRAY DOGSOn Monday, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the stray dog menace in Delhi-NCR was "grim" and "immediate steps need to be taken".The court's order came after it took suo motu cognisance of reports of dog bites leading to rabies."You will have to launch a drive with some force, you will have to round up all the stray dogs, whether sterilised or not sterilised... society should be free from stray dogs," the court said.However, the court's order has riled animal lovers, who have slammed the ruling as "inhumane" and underscored that it went against the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.The ABC rules mandate that sterilised and vaccinated stray dogs cannot be permanently relocated and have to be released to their original location.The order has sparked a massive debate on social media as well as protests by animal activists. On Tuesday, a group of 40-50 protesters were detained in Delhi while protesting near the India Gate.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
8 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court Seeks Government Response On Jammu And Kashmir Statehood Restoration Plea
The Supreme Court has issued a formal notice to the central government regarding a petition demanding the restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir within a specified timeframe. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, has scheduled the matter for hearing after two months while giving the Centre eight weeks to respond. The petition, filed through advocate Soyaib Qureshi on behalf of academician Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and social activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, argues that the prolonged Union Territory status undermines federalism, which constitutes a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners contend that successful peaceful assembly elections and general stability demonstrate that security concerns no longer justify the continued territorial status. During Thursday's proceedings, the applicants' counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, referenced the Supreme Court's December 2023 ruling on Article 370's abrogation. He emphasized that the court had previously refrained from addressing statehood restoration only because the Solicitor General had assured that it would occur following elections. The petition seeks restoration within two months, though the petitioners expressed willingness to accept any reasonable timeline set by the court. However, the proceedings took a significant turn when the bench referenced the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, suggesting that ground realities must be considered in such decisions. Chief Justice Gavai noted that the court lacks comprehensive expertise in security matters and acknowledged that certain decisions fall within the government's prerogative to assess local conditions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed the petition, characterizing it as non-maintainable and arguing that multiple considerations influence such decisions. He questioned the timing of raising this issue and requested the matter be postponed for eight weeks, indicating the government's reluctance to commit to immediate statehood restoration. The legal challenge emerges against the backdrop of significant constitutional changes implemented on August 5, 2019, when Parliament revoked Article 370's special status provisions and divided the former state into two Union Territories - Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The Supreme Court's Constitution bench validated this action in December 2023, describing it as the culmination of Kashmir's integration process with India while recording the Centre's commitment to eventual statehood restoration. Assembly elections were subsequently conducted in three phases between September and October 2024, resulting in a National Conference-Congress coalition government with Omar Abdullah assuming the chief minister's position. This democratic exercise fulfilled the court's directive for elections by September 2024. Recent political developments have intensified speculation about the Centre's intentions. Chief Minister Abdullah recently expressed optimism about positive developments for Jammu and Kashmir during Parliament's current monsoon session. He has actively lobbied various political party leaders, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, urging them to pressure the government for legislative action on statehood restoration. The Pahalgam incident, specifically referenced by the court, involved three terrorists who killed 25 tourists and a local operator on April 22. Security forces subsequently eliminated the attackers on July 28 in the Dachigam forest area. Intelligence confirmed the terrorists' Pakistani origins and their affiliation with Lashkar-e-Taiba. India's response included Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, reportedly eliminating over 100 militants. The operation escalated into a four-day conflict involving airstrikes on Pakistani military installations before hostilities ceased on May 10 following bilateral understanding. The court's reference to this attack underscores the complex security considerations that continue to influence policy decisions regarding Jammu and Kashmir's administrative status, even as democratic processes have been successfully restored and local governance established.
Hans India
8 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Delhi Stray Dog Removal Order Amid Widespread Opposition
The Supreme Court has reserved its decision on petitions challenging the controversial August 11 order that mandated the complete removal of stray dogs from Delhi and the National Capital Region. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria heard arguments on Thursday following widespread public outcry against the directive. The original order, issued by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, instructed authorities to capture all stray dogs and relocate them to shelters, beginning with 5,000 dogs within six to eight weeks. The court explicitly stated that no captured animals should be returned to the streets under any circumstances, despite provisions for sterilization, deworming, and immunization as per Animal Birth Control Rules 2023. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal strongly opposed the implementation, arguing that forcing all dogs into shelters would result in inhumane conditions, potential culling, and public health hazards. He emphasized that the situation was extremely serious and called for an immediate stay on the August 11 directive. Advocate Abhishek Singhvi supported this position, contending that the order exceeded legal boundaries and violated established Animal Birth Control regulations. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the order by presenting alarming statistics, revealing that India reports over 3.7 million dog bite incidents annually. He stressed public safety concerns, particularly highlighting that children cannot safely play outdoors due to the stray dog menace. Mehta clarified that the government harbors no animosity toward animals but must prioritize public welfare. The controversy has sparked significant political and social debate. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticized the order as cruel and shortsighted, advocating for humane alternatives like sterilization, vaccination, and community-based care. His sister Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, along with BJP leaders Varun Gandhi and Maneka Gandhi, also expressed concerns about the directive. Animal rights organizations, including PETA India, condemned the order as impractical and illegal. The organization, along with numerous activists, organized protests near India Gate, resulting in several detentions. A candlelight march was held in Rohini to demonstrate against the removal order. Following the directive, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has already begun implementation by capturing over 100 stray dogs and converting 20 Animal Birth Control centers into temporary shelters. The MCD has identified an 85-acre site in Ghoga Dairy for large-scale shelter facilities and is actively searching for additional land. Mayor Raja Iqbal Singh announced that the relocation process would prioritize aggressive and rabies-infected dogs before expanding to others. Critics argue that blanket removal strategies have historically proven ineffective, as evidenced by senior advocate statements that removing 300,000 animals from Delhi would only result in an equal number returning within a week. They advocate for scientifically-backed approaches focusing on sterilization, vaccination, and community involvement as more sustainable solutions. The case has highlighted the complex balance between public safety and animal welfare, with the Supreme Court now deliberating on whether to maintain its original directive or consider alternative approaches that address both human and animal concerns in the capital region.
The Hindu
8 minutes ago
- The Hindu
PIL on ‘detention' of Bengali-speaking migrant workers: Supreme Court seeks response of Centre, States
The Supreme Court on Thursday (August 14, 2025) agreed to hear a PIL which alleged that Bengali-speaking migrant workers are been detained on suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, refused to pass any interim order with regard to the detention, saying any order will have consequences especially with respect to people, who genuinely came from across the borders. Also Read | In the name of a nation: The Bengali migrant worker and Indian citizenship "States where these migrant workers are working have the right to inquire from their state of origin about their bonafide but the problem is in the interregnum. If we pass any interim orders, then it will have consequences, especially those who have illegally come from across the border and need to be deported under the law," the Bench said. It asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner West Bengal Migrant Welfare Board, to wait for sometime for the responses from the Centre and nine States – Odisha, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Delhi, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and West Bengal. Mr. Bhushan alleged that people are being harassed by the States just because they speak Bengali language and have documents in that language on the basis of a circular issued by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). "They are being detained while an inquiry is being held about their bonafide and in some cases, they are even tortured. Kindly pass some interim order that no detention will be held. I have no problem with enquiries but there should not be any detention," Mr. Bhushan submitted. The Bench said some mechanism needs to be developed to ensure that genuine citizens are not harassed.
