Banished without even being heard ?

 The Statesman, August 15th (Independence Day)

The news about the recent Supreme Court judgement on street animals came as a shock and surprise to many. The judgement basically pronounces that street dogs be removed completely from the streets of Delhi and sent permanently to supervised shelters in the outskirts in a time bound manner.

Though the judgement stems from a pure hearted intent to protect children from fatal diseases like rabies contracted from dog bites, the solution offered is harsh and can adversely affect the welfare of other groups in the city. Just as our children deserve safety and protection, so do the species we cohabit with. The judgement is tantamount to playing God as it literally removes an entire subspecies from its natural habitat. It goes against the friendly vibe of ‘the world is one family’ if we cannot try to coexist peacefully with street dogs (with the many useful checks and balances already in place). The oft exchanged reverent blessing of ‘Om Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah’ (may all beings be happy) starts sounding hollow when not practised on ground.

Other aspects of the judgement are disquieting as well.

To begin with, the two judges who gave the ruling made it clear that they will confine themselves only to taking the views of the government representatives. The government, as recently as 2023, notified a set of rules called the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules as an amendment to the prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. These are based on international models (WHO) and were arrived at after extensive consultation with animal welfare organisations and studying court judgements on animal issues. The rules unambiguously specify that animals cannot be dislocated from their current habitats in the city. However, in this recent court hearing, the government representatives themselves have opined that stray dogs should be removed and relocated to shelters. This complete volte face undermines the hard work of all the animal welfare agencies that worked together to frame these rules and ignores important recommendations of seasoned animal experts.

That the judges resolutely declined to entertain inputs from any other groups of concerned citizens/animal experts goes against the central tenet of a fair judicial proceeding. The entire framework of litigation is based on an equal opportunity for those on both sides of an argument to be heard. The perspective of one side must not be summarily dismissed or dispensed with. It does not imbue citizens with a sense of security if their voice is not heard.

The ‘accused’ in this case, vulnerable animals who cannot speak for themselves, have been unfairly bracketed into one single cohort and been left without any representation. How can an entire species be banished from a city without a formal procedure and detailed deliberations with all stakeholders? Especially when intent to cause harm cannot be ascribed to them as they do not have the intellect of humans. When even the most depraved criminals - such as those who were involved in the deliberate gang rape of Nirbhaya, are given several chances to be heard, to appeal etc. how is it that nobody is allowed/invited to present the case for the welfare of simple street dogs?

Though rabies has certainly contributed to the deaths of a few children, the number of cases would be far less compared to other medical problems like malnutrition or infectious diseases related to poor water sanitation that takes the lives of thousands of children. These prevailing problems have been around for decades, yet have not attracted such extreme measures, positive or negative. 

One learned judge has questioned that when dogs are taken up for sterilization, why are they put back in the same place that they were taken from? While judges may be very experienced in the application of human laws, being conversant with some of the laws of Nature is equally important. It is well established that several species of animals, including dogs, are territorial. Whereas humans can buy and formally possess land, animals mark out their territory in different ways (the description of which is outside the scope of this article). Suffice it to say that dogs feel just as disoriented when removed from their usual habitat as internally or externally displaced humans do. Hence the key decision by the court wherein it has ordered that 5000 dogs should be rounded up and sent to shelters in the next 8 weeks (and the rest thereafter), can unintentionally come across as cruelty to animals. Moreover, an entire species cannot be penalised for the bites by a few, just as all human males cannot be held responsible for the many incidents of domestic violence or sexual assaults.

The logistics of eventually rounding up close to 10 lakh dogs are gargantuan. There are few private and government veterinary hospitals dedicated to animals in Delhi/NCR. Since the numbers of dogs that will suddenly be placed under government care are so large, has the court truly satisfied itself that there are enough shelters, veterinary doctors, and animal handlers to deal with this excess load? If facilities are overwhelmed like they were in Covid, we can safely assume that several dogs will be underfed, ill-treated and packed unceremoniously into crowded spaces. Are the judges comfortable with this scenario? There are enough relevant legislations pertaining to street dogs (the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 325 of BNS) Constitutional safeguards (Articles 48A, 51A), state list rules (item 14), and previous judgements (Animal Welfare Board of India vs Nagaraja & Ors; 2014), to name a few, which ensure their personal safety. It is certainly the inherent responsibility of courts to ensure that pre-existing laws are not violated in any manner. 

If MCD officials are pressed into rounding up stray dogs for the next couple of months or years, would we see an even greater pile up of garbage and dirt in the city, clogged drains, and water logging, or would the government hire more MCD personnel to execute their regular duties satisfactorily? The judgement also decrees that a dog which inflicts a bite on human is to be caught in 4 hours. This judicial proclamation compels MCD and other officials to give dog related issues precedence over their other responsibilities. This is likely to lead to a collapse of normal civic services for citizens.

The judgement has far-reaching negative social consequences as well. Several citizens of Delhi are dog lovers. Many of them have a deep bond with street dogs, consider dogs a part of their family, spend time and their hard-earned money feeding them day and night, giving them the affection they deserve and protecting them from the ravages of city life. Snatching these dogs away from their human carers is like forcibly separating children from their parents-an incredibly insensitive and mean gesture. It can leave these citizens feeling depressed and bereaved. Do their lordships want to bring about an air of gloom in the city and send several kind hearted citizens down a spiral of sorrow, anxiety, and mental health problems? Will their lordships take the moral responsibility of this new catastrophe?

The importance of dogs in the lives of humans is well known and cannot be stressed enough: whether in their role as friends, saviours, healers, disaster squad dogs, sniffer police dogs, guide dogs for the blind and so on. Dogs guard homes and offices and their presence as pets is very therapeutic. The recent judgement forbids citizens from adopting any of these stray dogs as pets. This is bizarre, as it would contribute partly to solving the problem. Also, it fosters discrimination between individuals as poorer citizens who may like to adopt a pet may not be able to afford exorbitant pedigreed dogs on their meagre salaries. Is keeping a pet dog going to become the privilege of the rich? Are we class conscious humans going to create a class divide amongst animals too? Will we have a stratification among dogs where only adopted pets get to live a good quality of life and Indies/strays get banished to shelters?

It is indeed very painful to see a child or an elderly person suffer injuries whether it is a premeditated attack by a human criminal or an accidental dog bite. Pro-active and sensible steps taken to ensure the physical safety of our loved ones are very welcome and necessary but they should be such that we do not sacrifice our humanity or our sense of balance and proportion.