Supreme Court's Order To Remove All Stray Dogs Triggers Heated Debate Online
Reacting to the order, one user wrote, "Dear stray dog lovers, If you are this upset with the SC decision to take the strays off the road, please take a few into your homes and give the dogs a loving home. Shell out for their vaccinations, training and treatment. Put your money where your mouth is. Feeding stray dogs stale chapatis from your home does NOT make you an animal activist!"
"No one should have to risk the life of their three year old child because someone somewhere is compassionate about stray dogs. It's that simple," commented another.
"If you're unaware of the stray dog situation in Delhi NCR, ask those who work night shifts. I'm a dog lover myself, but this stray dog menace needs to stop. I SUPPORT SC's DECISION," wrote a third user.
However, one user said, "Here's the fundamental problem with Supreme Court's verdict on stray dogs: Humanity's place at the top of the food chain is by sheer luck. We can't claim superiority, and no guarantee we'll hold it forever. Yet we use our privilege to justify exterminating other species. The Supreme Court's order on #straydogs not only lacks empathy but shows an ignorance of basic evolutionary biology."
"If you've never loved a stray dog, you've missed the purest love there is and that loss is yours alone. This judgment doesn't just break laws, it breaks compassion. It violates the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, overrides animal welfare laws, and tramples the duties our Constitution asks of us. We owe our strays better," commented another.
"The Supreme Court order on stray dogs in Delhi is nothing but a death sentence for every single stray on every single street in the national capital - and each one of us needs to raise our voice against it," wrote one user.
"Let's hope this is done with compassion, proper facilities, and a focus on their well-being, so every wagging tail finds comfort instead of fear," one user said.
Under the directions, the civic authorities in the Delhi NCR region have been ordered to create shelter capacity for at least 5,000 dogs within six to eight weeks. These facilities must be staffed with sufficient personnel for sterilisation and vaccination, equipped with CCTV monitoring to prevent any release, and designed to scale up in the future. The civic authorities have also been instructed to start a helpline for reporting dog bite cases. "Round up all stray dogs from all localities, whether sterilised or unsterilised," the court said.
The court said civic authorities can decide how they carry out this task and that they can form a dedicated force if needed. Anyone blocking the exercise would face action for contempt of court, it warned.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC questions right of Jain organisations to seek closure of slaughterhouse for entire Paryushan Parv
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday questioned the right of organisations representing the Jain community to seek closure of slaughterhouses for the entire period of nearly 10 days of Paryushan, a prominent Jain festival. The court said there was no legislative mandate in law for such an order. The HC also issued notice to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the state government, seeking their response to pleas seeking closure of slaughterhouses for the entire festival. The court also said that it cannot stay the present BMC decision. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by Sheth Bherulalji Kanaiyalalji Kothari Religious Trust and Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities and two other organisations. The petitioners had relied on the Supreme Court judgement of March 2008 in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat pertaining to Ahmedabad (Gujarat) that upheld the decision of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close down slaughterhouses during Jain festival. Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud argued that the BMC, in its August 14 decision, did not consider that the Mumbai city has more Jain population than Ahmedabad. He submitted that BMC's order was exactly a 'copy-paste' version of last year's decision and it 'exhibits lack of application of mind and has been passed by taking into account the material which is not relevant for the purposes of the decision'. The petitioners also referred to Article 51A (g) of the Constitution related to fundamental duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures and argued the civic bodies should considered the same. The HC remarked that it could not direct the authority to close slaughterhouses for the entire Paryushan Parv as there was 'no legislative mandate' in law. The judges orally remarked, 'You (petitioners) are seeking a mandamus of 10-day closure. For that there has to be a mandate in law. You must have a right which could be enforced by court of law. Where does the law say that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days? No stay can be granted (on BMC decision) because you are seeking writ of mandamus. Except for pointing out an error in BMC order , you have not made out a case for issuing mandamus.' The HC emphasised that the SC verdict was on a decision made by Ahmedabad civic body and not one imposed by judicial order of the court. The bench orally remarked, 'You (petitioners) will appreciate the difficulty (of the HC). In SC judgement, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had taken a decision (of closure), which was upheld by the court. But in this case, there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law that they must close (for all 10 days). Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction.' Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar for another petitioner argued that the BMC had taken a decision despite there being a large number of vegetarian population in the city. He remarked it was easier 'to appeal and convince Mughal emperor Akbar' to prohibit slaughter in Gujarat (in his times as mentioned in SC verdict) but it was difficult to convince the BMC and state government. The HC allowed petitioners to amend the pleas to challenge BMC's August 14 order and posted the hearing after two weeks.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
23 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Governor stalling assent to bills undermines elected state governments: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the power of the governor to permanently withhold assent to bills would leave the state government, which is elected with majority, at his 'whims and fancies'. 'Would we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in over an appeal. The government elected with the majority will be at (the) whims and fancies of (the) governor,' Chief Justice of India(CJI), Justice B R Gavai, said. The court was hearing the maintainability of the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. The reference was concerning the April 8 ruling of the top court that set timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by the legislature. In the April 8 judgment, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to fix deadlines for the President and governors to act on state bills. Replying to the query of the CJI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the Constitution Bench of CJI B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P S Narasimha, and Justice Atul S Chandurkar that everyone derives power from the Constitution. On the powers of the governor under Article 200, Mehta said the governor has four options- assent to the bill, withhold assent, reserve the bill for consideration of the President or send it back to the legislature. He said that when the governor withholds assent, the bill falls through. Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the governor's powers regarding assent to bills passed by the state legislature. If a bill is returned, the legislature can pass it again with or without amendments, and the governor is then bound to give assent. The bench, however, remarked that the governor has to communicate his or her decision and that the focal point of the debate would be whether withholding is temporary or permanent. Mehta said the power to withhold is to be used rarely and only in the first instance, as it leads to the death of the bill. 'The governor is not just a postman. He represents the Union of India, appointed by the President. The President is elected by the entire nation by way of the entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression,' Mehta said. After the April 8 judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to consult the Supreme Court. This Article, commonly referred to as the power of 'Presidential Reference', empowers the President of India to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. President Murmu, on May 13, posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court of India on several aspects of law, including the ambit of the powers under Article 142. In response, the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu filed an application questioning the maintainability of the reference. It urged the Supreme Court to return the reference unanswered and said it was an attempt by the Centre to indirectly overrule binding judgments without disclosure. Meanwhile, the central government supported the reference, arguing that the power of governors and the President to act on bills cannot be bound by judicial timelines. The hearing will continue on Thursday.
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
PK supports bill for resignation of leaders jailed for 30 days
Patna: Jan Suraaj founder Prashant Kishor on Wednesday supported the Constitutional amendment bill providing for a mandatory resignation or removal of the Prime Minister, chief ministers and ministers if they have spent 30 consecutive days under arrest or detention. He added that this bill is aimed at discouraging people from running a govt from jail. Addressing a meeting in Purnia, Kishor said this bill is being introduced because the framers of the Constitution never anticipated that those in power would become so corrupt and criminal that they would have to go to jail. "Moreover, they would not relinquish their positions even after imprisonment. So the bill is good because if a leader is accused and sent to jail, they cannot continue running the govt from jail," he said, publicly supporting the NDA govt. On the other hand, the former poll strategist took a dig at RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav for reportedly calling it a party of "both sticks and laptops". "Truth has come out finally, and Tejashwi has acknowledged it. We have always said that RJD is a party of sticks and guns. During their govts, sticks, kidnappings, looting and extortion were the hallmarks of Bihar," Kishor alleged. 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.
