Representative image
NEW DELHI: Noting that India continues to report one of the world’s highest rabies-related mortality rates and there has been an alarming increase in dog-bite incidents, making public places unsafe, Supreme Court Friday directed that stray dogs be removed from premises of educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and depots, and railway stations. The court made it clear the authority concerned will face consequences for non-compliance. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria said the “menace of dog bites”, particularly in public and private institutions that serve as spaces of learning, healing and recreation, is a matter of human safety, and govts are under an obligation to protect life and health of citizens. In its order, the bench mentioned incidents of dog bites which grabbed headlines recently, including a Welsh entrepreneur being bitten during a morning run in Bengaluru and two coaches (from Kenya and Japan) being bitten in Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. Similar incidents in educational institutions, railway stations and hospitals were highlighted, including at Kannur railway station, where a rabid stray reportedly bit 18 people on a platform.
‘Stray dogs not to be released back to site from where they are picked up’
It shall be the responsibility of the jurisdictional municipal body/authority to forthwith remove every stray dog found within the premises of an educational institution, hospital (public or private), sports complex, bus stand/depot (including inter-state bus terminals) or railway station, and to shift such animal/s to a designated shelter, after due sterilisation and vaccination, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023,” the bench said. “Stray dogs so picked up shall not be released back to the same location from which they were picked up. We have consciously directed the non-release of such stray dogs to the same location from which they were picked up, as permitting the same would frustrate the very effect of the directions issued to liberate such institutional areas from the presence of stray dogs,” it said. No sooner had the bench read out the operating part of its order in open court than animal activists and dog lovers urged it not to sign the judgment and requested it to grant them a hearing. However, the bench turned down the request. It directed that the management or administrator of such institutions shall designate a nodal officer for the upkeep and cleanliness of premises, and ensuring that stray dogs do not enter or inhabit the campus. “The recurrence of such incidents, particularly within institutional spaces meant for learning, healing and recreation, reflects not only administrative apathy but also a systemic failure to secure these premises from preventable hazards,” the bench said. The situation calls for immediate judicial intervention to safeguard the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens, especially children, students, patients and sportspersons, it said. The directions, SC said, are being issued in continuation of and in furtherance of its order, dated Aug 22, to ensure that the menace of stray dog attacks within institutional areas is curbed through effective preventive and administrative mechanisms. “The primary objective is to safeguard the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens…while ensuring compliance with the principles embodied in the ABC Rules, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,” it said. It also directed chief secretaries of states and UTs to implement its direction and file status reports after eight weeks. The Animal Welfare Board has been directed to file a report on the nationwide status of sterilisation and vaccination drives as well as formulation of uniform standard operating procedures for prevention of dog-bite incidents. “Any reported non-compliance of any of the above directions shall be viewed very seriously and may invite penalties/consequences including but not limited to the initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against erring officials,” the bench said. It said the administrative heads of these institutions shall through their respective local or municipal authorities, under the overall supervision of the district magistrate, ensure that premises are secured by fencing, boundary walls, gates and other such structures, or administrative measures as may be necessary to prevent the ingress of stray dogs. Go to Source
