SC modifies stray dogs ruling; allows release from shelters after vaccination, but bans public feeding

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court on Friday modified its earlier August 11 order, directing that stray dogs will be released back into the same areas after proper sterilisation and immunisation, except for those infected with rabies or displaying aggressive behavior. The apex court categorically stated that feeding of stray dogs on public streets will no longer be permitted. Feeding of stray dogs in public places is prohibited, and appropriate action will be taken against individuals who do so, stated the three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria. The bench had earlier reserved its verdict on August 14. The court ordered Municipal Corporation of Delhi to establish dedicated feeding zones for stray dogs, taking into account the population and density of stray dogs in each municipal ward. These designated areas must be clearly marked with notice boards, informing the public that feeding of stray dogs is allowed only in these spaces. Emphasising the need for better infrastructure, the court called for the creation of helplines for reporting violations. It also made clear that no individual or organisation should obstruct officials from performing their duties. The court further directed that NGOs involved in the matter be paid 25,000 each, with the amount to be used for setting up facilities. It also barred them from making any further legal submissions in this case. Expanding the scope of the matter, the bench announced that it intended to include all States and Union Territories by involving their respective Animal Husbandry Departments and Municipal Authorities. The August 11 order had triggered considerable backlash from dog lovers. In response, senior advocates including Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing petitioner NGOs, sought a stay on the order, arguing that there were insufficient shelter homes to house the stray dogs. Sibal contended that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and a Parliamentary legislation already govern the issue. Criticising the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), he asked, What have they been doing all these years? Have they built shelters? Have they carried out sterilisation programs? He argued that because the MCD had failed in its duties, dog populations had surged, and communities had taken on the responsibility of caring for the strays. Sibal warned that, without shelters, the dogs might end up being culled. Singhvi also supported Sibals argument, adding that the August 11 order went against previous directions that prohibited the mass removal of stray dogs. Stray dogs in Delhi: SC slams local authorities for inaction, reserves order The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice B.R. Gavai by advocate Nanita Sharma, representing an NGO. She highlighted the existence of conflicting orders from two different benches of the Supreme Court and requested clarification. During the August 14 hearing, the court expressed strong disapproval of the inaction by local authorities, stating: The government has done nothing. The local bodies have done nothing. Everyone filing interventions here must take responsibility. Despite hearing these arguments, the court did not stay the August 11 order, which had directed civic authorities in Delhi-NCR to begin removing stray dogs from all localities within eight weeks and to house them in dedicated shelters. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, submitted data showing that approximately 3.7 million dog bite cases occur in India each year, equating to about 10,000 daily. He also cited World Health Organization (WHO) statistics indicating that 20,000 rabies-related deaths happen annually. Mehta argued that even if dogs are immunised, they can still pose a threat, particularly to children and highlighted how children are increasingly unable to play outdoors due to stray dog populations. He clarified that the government was not advocating killing stray dogs, but rather separating them from residential areas for public safety. Earlier in the hearing, the court slammed the MCD for its failure to implement laws and policies. Parliament frames laws, but they are not implemented. On one hand, people are suffering; on the other hand, animal lovers are objecting. All those filing interventions must submit affidavits and evidence, the bench had stated. Dont make dogs pay for human inefficiency Will animal rights activists bring back children lost to rabies, SC asks while ordering stray dog removal