.
NEW DELHI: Heeding a chorus of pleas by multiple animal right activists and groups to allow them to protect or maintain stray dogs in public spaces, Supreme Court on Wednesday said they can feed and take care of canines, but will have to face tortious liability for any injury caused to the public by the animals. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria said that the right to protect stray dogs in public spaces cannot be divorced from the obligation to ensure that such actions do not result in harm to others and made it clear that right and responsibility go together. It said, “While considerable emphasis has been placed on the protection, feeding and continued presence of community dogs in public and institutional spaces, a pertinent question arises as to whether such individuals, organisations and associations would be willing to assume corresponding legal responsibility for the consequences arising therefrom.”
Animal rights can’t operate in isolation: SC In particular, whether such animal welfare organisations, associations, or individuals, who claim to care for or exercise control over stray dogs in a given locality, would be willing to accept tortious liability in respect of any injury, harm or damage caused by such dogs to members of the public,” the bench said. It was contended before the bench that National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, University of Law (Nalsar), Hyderabad, has institutionalised humane treatment of stray dogs in its campus by creating an Animal Law Centre. It was also submitted that similar social experiments could be undertaken in other educational institutions, which would act in furtherance of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. The centre said such exercise would inculcate empathy among students and inspire them to be kind to the animals. Allowing the centre’s plea to carry on with its work on an experimental basis, the bench directed that the Animal Law Centre furnish an undertaking to Nalsar vice-chancellor that, in the event of any incident of stray dog bite occurring within the campus, the centre shall be liable to face tortious liability for the injury caused to the individual(s) concerned. “This court is of the considered opinion that any framework concerning the management and protection of stray dogs must necessarily be accompanied by clearly defined principles of accountability. The assertion of rights or interests in favour of such animals cannot operate in isolation, divorced from the corresponding responsibility to safeguard human life and safety,” the bench said. “Insofar as the animal welfare groups or student-led bodies in educational institutions are concerned, it shall be mandatory for any such group or body operating within such campuses to expressly undertake such liability by filing an affidavit to this effect with the Head of the Institution concerned, failing which no such activity of maintaining or feeding stray dogs shall be permitted within the institutional premises. Failure to comply would entail suitable action against the Head of the Institution concerned,” it said.
