New Delhi, Aug 11: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi government, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to immediately begin removing stray dogs from all localities in the national capital, warning of contempt proceedings against any individual or organisation that obstructs the exercise, reports Bar & Bench. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered that “NCT Delhi, MCD, NMDC shall at earlier start picking up stray dogs from all localities from more particularly vulnerable localities… this should be the first and foremost exercise to make all localities free of stray dogs. There should not be any compromise in undertaking the exercise.” The Court came down sharply on animal rights activists, remarking, “All these animal activists, will they be able bring back who have fallen prey to rabies?” It stressed that the directions were being issued “for the public interest” and that “no sentiments of any nature should be involved.”
The order further stated: “If any individual or organization that comes in the way of picking stray dogs or rounding them up, we will proceed to take action against any such resistance.”
“The State of NCT Delhi, MCD and NDMC is directed to create dog shelters and report this Court creation of such infrastructure within 8 weeks… The dog shelter would be monitored by CCTV.”
“Not a single stray dog should be released and if we know that this has happened, we will take stern action.”
The Court also mandated creation of a helpline within one week for reporting dog bites, with the requirement that dogs be rounded up within four hours of a complaint. Authorities have been told to publish details about rabies vaccine availability and stock, as well as maintain a daily record of captured dogs. The directions were issued in a suo motu case concerning rising incidents of rabies and deaths from stray dog bites. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Bench that plans to relocate stray dogs had previously stalled after activists obtained a stay order, and conveyed that families of victims supported the Court’s intervention. Observing that “the situation is grim” and that “immediate steps need to be taken,” the Bench fixed the next hearing after six weeks and warned that “any hindrances… would be viewed as contempt of court.” (Source: Bar & Bench)
