Latest news with #JusticeJBPardiwala
Mint
6 days ago
- Mint
SC on stray dogs: What the order says, how big is the menace, and other points, explained
The Supreme Court on August 11 directed municipal authorities to pick up and house all stray dogs in Delhi and parts of the National Capital Region (NCR) in dedicated shelters within eight weeks. The directions were given in a case the top court took up suo motu on July 28 after what it said was a 'very disturbing and alarming' newspaper report about the death of a six-year-old girl due to rabies. 'Infants and young children, at any cost, should not fall prey to rabies…The action should inspire confidence that they [children] can move freely without fear of being bitten by stray dogs,' Justice JB Pardiwala said. For good measure, he warned that 'If any individual or organisation comes in the way of picking up stray dogs or rounding them up, we will proceed to take action'. While the apex court directives have kicked up a huge row, there is clearly the need for a middle ground. India has one of the highest numbers of stray dogs in the world, but equally, stray dog control has become a lightning rod civic issue in Delhi and other Indian cities. While some residents see the dogs as a menace, others consider them to be family. Many dogs are fed daily by community feeders who provide food, water and veterinary care. Here, we do a deep dive into a subject where animal activists and the victims of dog bites are nearly evenly matched. The ruling, one of the strongest in the nation's long-running struggle with its street dog population, directs civic authorities to capture all strays, sterilise and vaccinate them and relocate them to newly built shelters. The court gave authorities eight weeks to create the facilities and install CCTV monitoring to ensure no animals are released back onto the streets. India does have the highest number of rabies cases globally. It is estimated that India accounts for approximately 36% of global rabies deaths. Dog bites are the primary cause of rabies transmission in India, accounting for about 96% of cases, according to the National Centre for Disease Control. Between January and June this year, Delhi reported 35,198 animal bite incidents and 49 rabies cases, municipal data revealed. The last dog census, in 2012, put Delhi's stray population at 60,000 and the figure now is estimated to be closer to 1 million. Dog packs roam out in the open in colonies and on streets, and attacks on children and elderly people often make news headlines. The number of strays may vary. Constructing dog shelters in the NCR will involve significant costs, including land acquisition, construction, staffing, and ongoing operational expenses. While a precise cost estimate is difficult without specific details, the scale of the problem (millions of stray dogs) and the requirements for adequate facilities (sterilisation, vaccination, housing, etc.) suggest a multi-million-dollar investment is likely needed. The Delhi government and local municipal bodies would need to allocate significant funds for shelter construction and operation. In addition, animal welfare organisations often rely on private donations, fundraising events, and corporate sponsorships to support their work. Collaboration between government bodies and private organisations can help pool resources and expertise. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 at various places protect stray dogs against any kind of cruelty. The Supreme Court of India in 2009 gave a similar stay order against removal, culling or dislocation of a dog anywhere in India. Thus far, stray dogs were protected under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960, especially under Section 38 of the Act. Also, as per the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, dogs cannot be relocated or removed from their territory. Dog lovers protest near Hanuman Mandir at Connaught Place, in New Delhi, on Tuesday, August 12. The Supreme Court has directed that all stray dogs in Delhi and NCR be rounded up within eight weeks and housed in shelters set up by civic authorities. (Photo by Sanjeev Verma/ Hindustan Times) The Supreme Court, until the August 11 judgement, observed last month, while taking up the case suo moto, that law warrants the protection of street dogs, but the authorities will have to bear in mind the concern of common man, such that their movement on streets are not hampered by dog attacks. Local bodies are responsible for taking care of stray dogs, including providing shelters. The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, require local bodies to manage stray dog populations through sterilisation and anti-rabies vaccination programmes. There is a common misconception in India that feeding strays is illegal. Instead, the Constitution of India supports the right of citizens to show compassion towards all living creatures, including strays and to feed them, under Article 51A(g). What is the reaction of animal rights groups? Animal protection groups have called the order 'impractical and inhumane'. Bharati Ramachandran, the chief executive of the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations urged large-scale sterilisation, vaccination, and public awareness campaigns. Mini Aravindan, a senior official at Peta India, said: 'It's infeasible to build and staff enough shelters for hundreds of thousands of dogs', adding that the cost would be huge.
NDTV
22-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Supreme Court's 'Chance vs Merit' Order Against NEET-PG Seat-Blocking
New Delhi: Blocking of seats during counselling for postgraduate medical courses disadvantages higher-ranked candidates and undermines merit-based selection, the Supreme Court said today, issuing several directions to prevent this practice during admissions after NEET-PG, the all-India exam for admission to postgraduate courses. Seat-blocking is a common practice across competitive exams. Candidates take admission to courses at multiple institutions as part of a contingency plan. Later, they choose the most preferred option and vacate the other seats. These seats are then up for grabs, but by then most candidates have already taken admission somewhere. So, candidates much lower on the merit list get a shot at these seats. The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said seat-blocking is not merely an isolated wrongdoing, but reflects deeper systemic flaws. "This malpractice distorts the actual availability of seats, fosters inequity among aspirants, and often reduces the process to one governed more by chance than merit," the court said in its order. It said systemic flaws rooted in "fragmented governance, lack of transparency, and weak policy enforcement" were responsible for this. "Seat blocking in NEET-PG counselling occurs when candidates temporarily accept seats, only to abandon them later after securing more preferred options. This leads to those seats remaining unavailable in earlier rounds and opening up only in later stages, disadvantaging higher-ranked aspirants, who may have already committed to less preferred choices," the court said. "Delays in state counselling, last-minute seat additions or deletions, and lack of coordination between quotas worsen the issue. As a result, lower-ranked candidates can secure better seats by taking risks, while merit-based selection is undermined Supreme Court observed," it added. The bench issued several directions to the authorities to curb seat-blocking. These directions include: (i) implement a Nationally synchronized counselling calendar to align AIQ (All India Quota) and State rounds and prevent seat blocking across systems (ii) mandate Pre-Counselling Fee Disclosure by all private / deemed universities, detailing tuition, hostel, caution deposit, and miscellaneous charges (iii) establish a Centralized Fee Regulation Framework under the National Medical Commission (iv) permit upgrade windows post-round 2 for admitted candidates to shift to better seats without reopening counselling to new entrants and (v) publish raw scores, answer keys and normalization formulae for transparency in multi-shift NEET-PG exams. The other directions are: (vi) enforce strict penalties for seat blocking including forfeiture of security deposit, disqualification from future NEET-PG exams (for repeat offenders), blacklisting of complicit colleges (vii) implement Aadhaar-based seat tracking to prevent multiple seat holdings and misrepresentation (viii) hold state authorities and institutional DMEs accountable under contempt or disciplinary action for rule or schedule violations (ix) Adopt a Uniform Counselling Conduct Code across all States for standard rules on eligibility, mop-up rounds, seat withdrawal, and grievance timelines and (x) set up a third-party oversight mechanism under NMC for annual audits of counselling data, compliance, and admission fairness. Earlier, NEET-PG aspirants from the 2017-2018 academic session had approached the Allahabad High Court with their grievances, including seat-blocking. The High Court found that lower-ranked candidates were allowed to participate in the mop-up counselling rounds despite being allotted seats and this put higher-ranked candidates at a disadvantage. The high court awarded compensation of Rs 10 lakh each to the petitioners and directed authorities to carry out reforms. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of Medical Education and Training challenged the order in the Supreme Court, which stayed it in 2018. In today's judgment, the court revised the compensation amount to Rs 1 lakh each. It acknowledged policy improvements carried out in 2021 and urged authorities to implement the directions.
