killing of stray dogs

 We must eschew unscientific and barbaric methods such as the killing of stray dogs in favour of the scientific approach, which is a win-win for everyone

हमें आवारा कुत्तों की हत्या जैसे अवैज्ञानिक और बर्बर तरीकों को छोड़कर वैज्ञानिक दृष्टिकोण अपनाना चाहिए, जो सभी के लिए फायदे का सौदा है।

भारत में क्या सिचुएशन है ?

1 India has the highest number of stray dogs in the world, and also the highest number of stray dog attacks and rabies deaths. In 2023, there were 2.75 million dog bites in India, a 26.5% increase from 2022. 

2 Stray dog attacks are considered - a danger to children and the elderly, and some say they can also make visually impaired people reluctant to leave their homes.

 कोर्ट ने क्या बोला ?

1.there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislations in place.”

2 Supreme Court of India brought to an end a 15-year-old case titled Animal Welfare Board of India & Anr Versus People for Elimination of Stray Troubles & Ors, also known as the All India Stray Dogs case or AWBI vs PEST.

3  The last hearing was held on May 9 this year when the judgment was reserved. 

CASE IS BASED ON SOME QUESTION ?

The case centred on whether municipal and local authorities can wantonly kill stray dogs ?

to reduce the stray dog population, eradicate rabies, and prevent man-animal conflict. 

 or whether local bodies must follow the World Health Organization (WHO)-backed scientific approach of sterilisation, which achieves these objectives.

 battle of supremacy between State and Municipal laws

 which authorise the killing of stray dogs (euphemistically referred to as culling) as opposed to the 

• Central law (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, 
• and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2001),
• 
  
•  which mandates that killing is strictly prohibited and, the only recourse is the scientific solution of sterilisation.

(PCA) Act, 1960 

• About the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960:
  
  • The legislative intent of the Act is to “prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals”.
  • The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) was established in 1962 under Section 4 of the Act.
  • This Act provides for punishment for causing unnecessary cruelty and suffering to animals. The Act defines animals and different forms of animals.
  • Discusses different forms of cruelty, exceptions, and killing of a suffering animal in case any cruelty has been committed against it, so as to relieve it from further suffering.
  • Provides the guidelines relating to experimentation on animals for scientific purposes.
  • The Act enshrines the provisions relating to the exhibition of the performing animals, and offences committed against the performing animals.
  • This Act provides for the limitation period of 3 months beyond which no prosecution shall lie for any offences under this Act.

Final mandate

 were challenged in various High Courts 

1 These State and Municipal laws permitting the killing of stray dogs were challenged in various High Courts.

 2 authorities have discretionary powers 

The High Courts of Bombay, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh ruled that local authorities have discretionary powers to kill stray dogs and are not bound by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 

3 NO discretionary powers BUT they are guided by Central law 

 On the other hand, the Kerala High Court ruled that local bodies possess 

• no such discretionary powers, 
• they are guided by Central law, 
•  penalises cruelty to animals, specifically canines.

 NOW CASE GOING TO SUPREME COURT 

All these judgments were appealed and came to a head in the Supreme Court, which then issued notices to all the States and Union Territories in 2015, taking the case to a pan-India level.

 final order was uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website

1 SAYS -  there has been a change in the legislative landscape with the notification of the new ABC Rules, 2023 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 

2 These two pieces of legislation mandate that wanton killing by municipalities is prohibited and that sterilisation must be followed. 

3 challenge them in the relevant High Courts 

The Supreme Court then stated that any parties with issues regarding these new laws can challenge them in the relevant High Courts. 

4  governing law of the land remains the Central law (PCA Act 1960 and ABC Rules, 2023), which prohibits the killing of stray dogs by local authorities or municipalities.

‘Duty of every citizen’

 WHAT CAME IN JUDJEMENT  ? 

1 “Compassion to all living beings, is the enshrined Constitutional value and mandate, and cast obligation on the authorities to maintain.”

2 Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India

which deals with the fundamental duties of the citizens and states: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including 

• forests, 
• lakes, 
• rivers, and 
• wildlife 
• and to have compassion for living creatures.”

The dog haters, or to put it politely the cynophobes

 can certainly go to the High Courts and file writ petitions praying for the striking down of the new Central Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.

SOME ARGUMENTS IN PROTECTION 

1 BUT Science certainly does not back

the claim that killing helps reduce the population.

2 WHO’s Expert Consultation on Rabies

 which met in Geneva in October 2004, in its technical report endorses the sterilisation programme by stating that it is the only effective and humane method of controlling stray dog populations.

3 A 2014 report commissioned by the Bombay Municipal Corporation

stated that sterilisation is the only scientific humane solution. 

4 The same corporation in a 1994 

circular admitted that killing strays does not affect the population.

In this circular, the Bombay Municipality admitted to killing about 4.5 lakh stray dogs between 1984 and 1994 and spent more than ₹2 crore.

WAY FORWARD 

contrary, the same Bombay Municipal Corporation approached 

 

But what takes the cake is that, despite no evidence to prove the efficacy of killing and evidence to the contrary, the same Bombay Municipal Corporation approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to kill stray dogs in this case.

One can only hope that the spirit of scientific temper and humanism, as enshrined in the fundamental duty in our Constitution under Article 51A(h), imbues itself in the minds of our citizens.

We must eschew unscientific and barbaric methods such as the killing of stray dogs in favour of the scientific approach, which is a win-win for everyone.

We domesticated stray dogs around 10,000 years ago and let us not let them or ourselves down.

Source the hindu