India's Supreme Court Tells New Delhi to Round Up Stray Dogs
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India, with its offices in the center of New Delhi, ruled that the current legal practices for taking care of the city's stray dog population were inadequate. Within eight weeks, the court declared, all strays must be rounded up and detained permanently in shelters.
The judges were responding to the menace of dogs that form packs and attack people. There has been a rash of incidents in recent years in which children have been mauled and in some cases killed by feral dogs. A 6-year-old girl died of rabies in July, setting in motion a train of grief and outrage that led to the Supreme Court. The justices took up the issue without any formal petition, as it does sometimes for matters of public interest.
The court's order seemed to contradict the Animal Birth Control law, which requires strays to be vaccinated, sterilized and then returned to the places where they had been picked up. But that strategy has not worked, the court found.
'For the time being, forget the rules and face reality,' a judge on the bench said, as reported by Indian news outlets. The court added that anyone who obstructed or interfered with its order would be held in contempt.
Nishaank Mattoo, a lawyer who has argued cases at the Supreme Court and who says he is a dog lover himself, said the judgment was wrong. 'The law says that you cannot displace a dog unless it is suffering from rabies,' he noted. 'And even if you remove it to sterilize it, you need to put it back in its surroundings.'
Complying with the court's decision will not be easy for the New Delhi authorities. Yasin Hussain, a veterinarian in the city, called it 'an ill-thought-out and arbitrary order.'
The action proposed by the Supreme Court would require that the city's free-roaming dogs, which are estimated to number nearly a million, be placed in facilities that even the justices acknowledge are yet to be built and that would need hefty funding to staff and operate.
'How is it possible to build so many shelters in so short a time?' Dr. Hussain asked. Others expressed related concerns. Antra Khurana, an academic who keeps rescue dogs in her home, said, 'How can the court ask these gentle creatures to be dumped in such large numbers?'
By Tuesday, even the political opposition had something to say. Rahul Gandhi, a leader of the Congress Party, wrote on social media, 'These voiceless souls are not 'problems' to be erased.'
While the court's language and relatively short deadline for compliance were unusual, its interventions into the mundane affairs of life in the capital are not. For instance, it was the Supreme Court, not lawmakers, that forced New Delhi's fleet of buses and auto-rickshaws to convert from diesel and gasoline to compressed natural gas 25 years ago, and this week the justices ruled on how to remove older diesel vehicles from the city's roads.
This time, 'the Supreme Court has ventured into the realm of legislation, which is not within its scope of powers,' Mr. Mattoo said, referring to the justices' creating policy rather than just interpreting and applying existing laws.
Even the term 'stray dogs' muddles an already complex issue. In Indian cities, many residents involve themselves in looking after animals that are neither pets nor possessions. Cows, pigeons and monkeys are routinely fed and befriended by neighbors.
Many of the same animals can be pests. In a country where rabies is a significant threat, anyone bitten must race to the emergency room for injections. Despite that risk, the loudest response to the court order has come from those defending the strays who loiter around their neighborhoods.
In Bengaluru, a giant city in India's south, a group of dog lovers was organizing over social media on Tuesday morning, saying they wanted to present a 'united stand against the removal and harm of community dogs,' even though the Supreme Court order currently applies only to New Delhi.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
27 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
What to Know About the Legal Issues Surrounding the Voting Rights Act
As the Voting Rights Act marks its 60th anniversary this year, the Supreme Court is set to hear at least one landmark case dealing with the legislation. The outcome will have long-term ripple effects on the balance of power in Congress, especially as states square off to redraw congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
10 years after same-sex marriage became legal, could the ruling be at risk? Here's where things stand, in 7 charts.
Same-sex marriage has become more common and more accepted. The Supreme Court is now being asked to overturn the case that legalized it nationwide. The Supreme Court is being asked to reconsider its landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage across the country 10 years ago. The challenge comes from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015. Davis is appealing a verdict that ordered her to pay $360,000 in damages to a couple who sought a license at her office. Lower courts have rejected her appeal, so she is now petitioning the Supreme Court to not only vacate the decision against her, but to vacate Obergefell entirely. The ruling marked an enormous victory for the marriage equality movement, which steadily gained popular support and increased legal recognition in the preceding decades. 'The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person … couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty,' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. It's unclear whether the Supreme Court will even choose to consider Davis's case, let alone decide to overturn a major precedent that's barely over a decade old. But her petition marks the first real challenge to the ruling and comes at a time when opposition to same-sex marriage has been slowly gaining steam on the right. Read more: Could the Supreme Court overturn same-sex marriage? This case hopes to roll back the ruling that made it legal. A lot has changed in the ten years since Obergefell was decided. The number of married same-sex couples has nearly doubled, and a strong majority of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be legal. Here's a snapshot of where things stand on same-sex marriage in America as the court considers whether to take up a case that aims to revoke nationwide marriage equality. More marriages, more acceptance From a purely practical sense, the Obergefell decision really only impacted the laws in a dozen states. The remaining 38 states and Washington, D.C., had already legalized same-sex marriage by that point, starting with Massachusetts in 2004. For that reason, the ruling didn't lead to a major spike in the number of same-sex marriages as much as it allowed an already growing trend to continue uninterrupted. As of 2023, the most recent year with available data, there were more than 770,000 married same-sex couples in America, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. While that's more than twice as many as there were in the year before Obergefell, it still represents just over 1% of all married couples in the U.S. Legalization has changed the nature of same-sex partnerships. In 2008, there were three times as many unmarried same-sex households as married ones. When Obergefell was decided in 2015, it was essentially an even split. Today, 60% of same-sex couples who live together are married. A persistent trend over the past 10 years has been women marrying other women at a higher rate than men marrying men. Though the difference isn't huge, it has resulted in 50,000 more lesbian marriages than gay marriages as of 2023. As a group, people in same-sex marriages have some distinct differences from their heterosexual counterparts. They are about five years younger, on average, and earn about $10,000 more per year than opposite-sex couples, in part because they are more likely to both have college degrees and both be working. The biggest divide involves children. Just 17% of same-sex married couples have kids living at home, less than half the rate of opposite-sex couples. Beyond simply making marriage more equal, legalization has had an 'unambiguously positive' impact on same-sex couples, according to a study published last year. That study found access to legal marriage has made same-sex couples healthier, more successful and more accepted by the communities around them — all of which also improves the lives of their children. They also found no evidence of negative impacts on opposite-sex marriages, despite longstanding warnings from opponents that same-sex marriage would somehow 'undermine' traditional partnerships. Changing views There are few issues in American politics that have seen such a dramatic shift in public opinion as same-sex marriage. It wasn't that long ago that the sitting president, George W. Bush, called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to prevent 'weakening the good influence of society.' In the 2000s, voters in dozens of states — including deep blue California and Oregon — approved ballot measures defining marriage as between one man and one woman. According to long-running polls by Gallup, support for same-sex marriage started steadily increasing in the late 1990s and has continued to trend upward ever since. It became the majority opinion for the first time in 2011 and kept ticking upward, to the point where 60% of Americans agreed with the Obergefell decision when it was handed down. That trend has continued over the past decade, though overall support may have peaked in the early 2020s and has even dipped slightly over the past few years. Gallup's polling reveals huge partisan differences in opinions about same-sex marriage. Less than half of Republicans support it today, which marks a substantial drop from just a few years ago, when 55% of GOP voters said they were in favor. Still, the long-term story is that support for same-sex marriage among Republicans has nearly tripled over the past three decades. Those differences in opinion also show up geographically. Same-sex marriage enjoys majority support in 48 states — the only exceptions being Oklahoma and Arkansas, where it's a 50/50 split — but there are massive gaps between the most and least supportive states. How big is the risk to same-sex marriage? Despite the clear legal and cultural progress that has been made on same-sex marriage, there are still concerns that Obergefell may be at risk of being overturned. If that were to happen, the legality of same-sex marriage would go back to being a state issue. In the past few years, four states — California, Hawaii, Colorado and Nevada — have eliminated their dormant bans so that same-sex marriage would still be legal if that were to happen. There's also some uncertainty about how the laws in a handful of states would operate in the absence of nationwide protections, but the overall result of Obergefell's reversal would be same-sex marriage instantly becoming illegal in dozens of states. But how real is the risk that Obergefell might go away? In addition to Davis's challenge, there have recently been some other headline-grabbing calls from conservatives who want that to happen. Republican lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced bills aimed at chipping away at marriage equality, though none of those would have any legal heft as long as Obergefell stands. Despite those state-level moves, opposing same-sex marriage doesn't appear to be a priority for the GOP as a whole. President Trump has given varying answers on the issue over the years, including saying that he's 'fine' with same-sex marriage during his 2016 campaign. In order to overturn Obergefell, the Supreme Court would have to be willing to hear Davis's case. Despite the court's rightward shift in recent years, many legal experts are skeptical that her petition poses a real threat to Obergefell. 'This just isn't the right vehicle for challenging a constitutional right to same-sex marriage,' Paul Collins, a professor of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek. Five of the nine justices who ruled in Obergefell are still on the court today. That includes Chief Justice John Roberts, who opposed the majority's decision in the case, writing in his dissent that 'The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage.' Two other dissenting justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, are also still in their seats. It's unclear how the other three conservatives on the court would rule if a challenge to Obergefell came before them. It's also not guaranteed that Roberts or Alito would land in the same place they did 10 years ago, especially given the implications of reversing a decision that has been the law of the land for a decade. Thomas is the only conservative justice who has explicitly called for reconsidering same-sex marriage, which was one of several rights that were established in cases decided under the same legal reasoning as the now-defunct abortion protection in Roe v. Wade. So far, none of those other precedents — which include the right to privacy, the right to access contraception and the right to interracial marriage — have faced a serious challenge before the court. Solve the daily Crossword
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
How new laws are changing Colorado school policies on religion, library materials
Books covering themes like race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and political or religious beliefs are staying on library shelves in Boulder County but your student may not have to read them. The night before the first bell of the school year rings for Boulder Valley School District, the school board approved a policy change that allows students and parents to opt out of curriculum covering controversial themes with no questions asked. However, the new policies also allow books and materials to stay accessible for all students. This shift in policy follows a June Supreme Court ruling requiring schools to provide parents the option to excuse their child from class when course material conflicts with religious beliefs. At the center of that case was the Montgomery County school system in Maryland. Parents sued the school board seeking to opt their elementary school kids out of class when reading material with LGBTQ characters. Parents argued that the fact they couldn't opt their kids out violated the First Amendment, and in a 6-to-3 decision, the justices agreed. That ruling is now impacting schools nationwide. Boulder County is one of the state's first school districts to adopt new policies after the Supreme Court ruling, but they didn't exclusively include a new opt-out option for parents. The new policies mean parents have more of a say in what their child learns about in class, but they also protect those resources in the library for other students to use. In 2020, B.J. and Brecken Jones sued the Boulder Valley School District in Colorado with a similar claim as the June ruling about a desire to opt their child out of lessons. Today, Jones celebrates the new opt-out policy but sent a statement reacting to the policies around general material access in part, "BVSD appears to be delegating more educational content decisions to activist "'educators' and away from parents, families, and the community." Meanwhile, some teachers tell CBS Colorado they're worried these policies are forcing them to think more like a lawyer than an educator, and worry about possible added work if consistent replacement assignments are needed for students who opt out. Tuesday's policies are some of the first changes since the 1980s. On Tuesday, the school board explained they're trying to thread the needle between following federal decisions and supporting access to materials that discuss things like gender, race, and sexuality. "I think for us it's important for our educators that they know that they're supported, and they know clearly what the rights of parents are as determined by the Supreme Court," BVSD Superintendent Rob Anderson said. The new BVSD policies also mean librarians will have more say about what goes on their shelves. These changes separate what's taught in the classroom and can be opted out of by parents from what's available to read at the library. Rae Ciciora is the District Library Coordinator for BVSD, and she explained that, in following the new Colorado law, book challenges or complaints about what's on the shelf must also now come from someone with a direct connection to a school or neighborhood rather than anyone with a concern. "It's limited to a parent or a community member in that school neighborhood, so that that group from Virginia can't come in and complain about our books and our libraries, only our students, families, and communities can complain about a book," Ciciora said. In the 2025 regular session, Senate Bill 25-063 became law and now requires many of these protections, alongside BVSD's policy affirming a librarian's choice in content. "I don't feel as exposed as I did last year with all of the administration that's you know, all the changes that are happening with the administration, and some of the movements that have come from out of state requesting, 'What titles are you having in your school libraries? We think we might want to pull some of those titles,'" Ciciora said, "This is giving me a sense of we are actually protected. Not just I know they've got my back, but the policy has our back." Board members expect to keep talking about these policies and get feedback from the public as the year continues. Meanwhile, some teachers tell CBS Colorado they hope it won't have too much of an impact on their day-to-day lessons. Superintendent Dr. Anderson also says that while BVSD may be one of the first to make these changes, he expects other schools to follow as the year begins. Senate Bill 25-063 also mandates that schools have written policies about library resources by Sept. 1.
