The issue of stray
dogs has been a matter of great public debate not only in Delhi-NCR but in the
entire country. The recent order given by the Supreme Court by taking suo motu
cognizance of this has once again given a new dimension to this debate. The bench
of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan directed to catch stray dogs
and keep them in shelter homes, saying that forget the rules for the time
being.
At first glance, this
order may seem to give relief to the general public, because incidents related
to stray dogs, complaints of bites and deaths due to rabies often remain in the
headlines, but if looked at deeply, this order is not only against the Animal
Birth Control (ABC) Rules, but also does not stand the test of practicality and
logic.
ABC Rules 2023 were made to strike a balance between animal welfare and
public safety in India. Under this, there is a clear provision that stray dogs
will have to be sterilized and vaccinated against rabies and then released in
the same area from where they were caught. This system is based on scientific
studies and years of experience.
Actually, dogs mark
their territory and become a part of the ecological balance there. If they are
forcibly removed and locked up in a shelter home, it will not only be cruelty
towards animals but will also lead to more aggressive behavior. The question is,
can the Supreme Court bypass any existing rule and impose an alternative
solution as per its convenience? The judiciary has the power to interpret and
give guidelines, but giving orders beyond the law puts a serious question mark
on the constitutional structure. If the court says that forget the rules for
the time being, then tomorrow a tendency to bypass the entire system can
develop by using the same logic in some other case.
There is no concrete
data available on the exact number of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, but the
estimated number is in lakhs. One can only imagine how impractical it is to
catch them and keep them in a shelter home. Huge shelter homes will be needed
for such a large number of dogs, which are very expensive to build and
maintain. The limited shelters that are currently available are in a bad
condition due to lack of care for the animals. When they are removed from their
area and kept in unknown places, the possibility of them becoming aggressive
and fighting will increase. On the other hand, it is also
worth noting that keeping dogs locked in a shelter for a long time causes
mental and physical suffering for them. Many animal experts believe that this
system is like life-time imprisonment, which goes against animal rights.
About 5,700
people die of rabies every year in India. Both the World Health Organization
and the Government of India have set a target of zero rabies by 2030.
But the ground reality is that the agencies that are supposed to
implement the ABC program are themselves victims of negligence and lack of
resources. Sterilization and vaccination work is incomplete. Many municipal
corporations do not give it priority.
As a result, the
number of dogs is constantly increasing and rabies control plans are limited to
paper only. If sterilization and vaccination had been implemented in a planned
manner from the beginning, this problem would not have become so serious. The court
should have pointed out this reality and held the government and agencies
accountable, rather than ordering the overturning of the entire system.
Society is divided
over stray dogs. There is a section that is troubled by them, they face
problems like incidents of biting children and the elderly, aggressive behavior
in packs at night, and filth on a daily basis. At the same time, there is
another class which regularly feeds these dogs, takes care of them and treats
them as community companions. It is essential to keep both these perspectives
in mind in any solution. If all the dogs are removed by giving priority to
safety only, then there will be anger among animal lovers.
On the other hand, if
only animal welfare is given importance, then it will become an unsafe
situation for the general public. A balanced solution will be the one which
coordinates both the perspectives. Many countries in the
world have tackled the stray dog problem. Countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka
have adopted the Catch-Neuter-Release (CNR) model, which is similar to India's
ABC rules. There, dogs are released into their territory after sterilisation
and vaccination, gradually controlling their numbers.
China experimented
with keeping dogs in shelters on a large scale, but it proved
resource-intensive and unsuccessful. Many countries in Europe have almost
eliminated the stray dog problem because they implemented strong pet laws,
compulsory registration and controlled breeding decades ago. For a large and
resource-limited country like India, the CNR model is the most practical
option.
The job of the
Supreme Court is not just to impose immediate solutions, but to show a path
that is practical, humane and in accordance with the constitutional framework.
The court should have formed an independent committee to monitor the
implementation of the ABC rules, sought progress reports from municipal
corporations and animal welfare agencies, directed the central and state
governments to prepare a coordinated roadmap, ordered an increase in budgetary
provisions for rabies control and sterilization programs, suggested setting up
safe zones for feeding dogs in public places so that there is no conflict
between the general public and animal lovers.
Overall, the problem
of stray dogs cannot be solved by a single order. This is a multi-dimensional
issue, which requires a balance of law, administration, society and human
sensibilities. The Supreme Court's concern that the safety of common citizens
should be ensured is justified, but the order given is neither practical nor
presents a long-term solution. India needs an organized, scientific and humane
policy.
A policy that not
only eliminates diseases like rabies, but also ensures both compassion towards
animals and safety of citizens. If the courts give decisions beyond the rules,
it will not lead to a solution but will increase confusion. The country expects
from the judiciary that it should identify the roots of the problem and give
concrete, balanced and implementable directions, because any decision taken by
bypassing the law may provide immediate relief, but can never become a
permanent solution.
Post a Comment