Bench says inaction has caused ‘entire problem’, warns of strict action against obstruction in dog relocation
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on Delhi-NCR local authorities, blaming their inaction for the growing stray dog menace and refusing to stay its earlier order directing the relocation of stray dogs to permanent shelters.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria was hearing petitions challenging the court’s August 11 order to capture stray dogs in Delhi and surrounding areas and shift them to shelters.
‘Children Are Dying Due to Dog Bites’
During the hearing, the Delhi government stressed the urgent need to address the crisis. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, told the court that over 37 lakh dog bite cases were reported in India in a year.
"Nobody is an animal hater, but children are dying due to dog bites that cause rabies. The issue needs to be addressed and should not be questioned," Mehta argued.
Petitioners Seek Relief, Court Unmoved
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, sought a stay on certain directions issued by the court, including the relocation of stray dogs to shelters.
However, Justice Vikram Nath criticised the lack of enforcement by authorities:
"Parliament makes rules and laws. But they are not implemented. On one hand, humans are suffering, and on the other, animal lovers are here. We need to act with some responsibility."
The bench instructed all applicants seeking intervention to file affidavits with evidence.
August 11 Order and Its Implementation
On August 11, the Supreme Court directed Delhi-NCR authorities to move all stray dogs from the streets to permanent shelters “as soon as possible” in response to rising cases of dog bites, especially involving children.
It also ordered the creation of shelters for at least 5,000 dogs within six to eight weeks and warned of strict action against anyone obstructing the relocation process.
The bench described the situation as “very serious”, indicating that a detailed hearing would follow, and reserved its order on interim relief.
Source: Supreme Court proceedings, August 14, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment