The Supreme Court has sharply criticized state governments and Union Territories for their lack of action regarding the stray dogs issue, highlighting their failure to file crucial compliance affidavits. A special bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, expressed concern that this inaction is causing India to be viewed unfavorably on the global stage, especially with reports of ongoing dog attacks across the country.
The Court has mandated that the chief secretaries of all states and Union Territories, with the exception of West Bengal and Telangana, must personally appear before it on November 3 at 10:30 AM. They are required to provide explanations for their non-compliance with the court’s directives.
Justice Nath remarked, “Three months were given to them in August, but nothing has come on record. Continuous incidents are happening and your country is shown in a bad light at international platforms.” He further cautioned that the court would not hesitate to impose costs for continued non-compliance.
‘Who is appearing for the states?’
The proceedings began with Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra informing the bench that all stray dog-related cases from various High Courts had been consolidated at the Supreme Court. In response, Justice Nath immediately questioned the representation for the states, noting the absence of any compliance affidavits.
While counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and representatives from Telangana and West Bengal stated they had filed their affidavits, Justice Nath pointed out that these filings were not yet officially on record, having been submitted during the Diwali recess.
Bench Questions Practicality of Impleading RWAs
During the hearing, when a suggestion was made to implead all Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs), Justice Nath firmly responded, “You want us to implead all RWAs? How many lakhs of RWAs will be here? Give practical, reasonable suggestions.” Justice Sandeep Mehta also highlighted the seriousness of the issue by asking, “What about cruelty to humans?”, referring to the increasing number of dog-bite incidents.
Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal suggested impleading the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and the Government of India, noting that the MCD’s affidavit lacked the required details. Justice Nath assured that the court was closely monitoring the situation to ensure the objectives were met.
Court Expands Case Nationwide
The Supreme Court’s August 22 order had expanded the scope of the case nationwide, directing all states and Union Territories to implement a humane population control program for stray dogs, which includes catching, sterilizing, and vaccinating them before release. The order also modified a previous restriction on releasing vaccinated dogs, deeming it “too harsh.”
Despite these directives, the bench observed widespread non-compliance, with only three states having filed affidavits. The court has now summoned the Delhi Chief Secretary to appear on the next hearing date. The case is scheduled to be heard again on November 3, when further actions will be determined based on the explanations provided by the chief secretaries.