What is the story about?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, January 13, warned that the state governments would be liable for heavy compensation for every bite by stray dogs and in case deaths results from such bites. It added that the people who feed stray dogs may also be held liable.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria made the remarks after hearing the stray dogs case for four full days. The bench will next hear the matter on January 20.
Observing that the number of cases of bites by stray dogs was rising and lamenting the lack of accountability, Justice Nath said, "For every dog bite, death or injury caused to children or elderly, we are likely going to fix heavy compensation by state for not doing anything."
Justice Nath also observed that people feeding stray dogs may be adding to the problem, saying, "Take them to your house. Why should dogs be littering around, biting, scaring people?"
The bench requested the counsels to allow the court to task the Union government, the state authorities and other bodies to set the process in motion.
Read more: In Telangana, case against 9, including Sarpanch, for allegedly killing 300 stray dogs
"Allow us to pass an order. We need to spend half a day with the States and Union to see whether they have a plan of action or not. The problem has multiplied a thousand times. We just want implementation of statutory provision. Allow us to do that. Allow us to work. Allow us to proceed further," the bench said.
The Supreme Court's order dated November 7, directed the authorities to capture, sterilise, vaccinate and then transfer the stray dogs in shelters. The court had said that all the public places should be free and safe, and strays should not be released. In another hearing, the court had directed that the dogs be released back in the same localities where they were taken from after sterilisation and vaccination.
The court witnessed a series of arguments in support and against the matter.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued in favour of the court's order and sought that the directions be extended to airports as well.
Many counsels argued against sheltering the dogs while the court remarked that such emotions were being seen only for dogs and animals, and not for humans.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria made the remarks after hearing the stray dogs case for four full days. The bench will next hear the matter on January 20.
Observing that the number of cases of bites by stray dogs was rising and lamenting the lack of accountability, Justice Nath said, "For every dog bite, death or injury caused to children or elderly, we are likely going to fix heavy compensation by state for not doing anything."
Justice Nath also observed that people feeding stray dogs may be adding to the problem, saying, "Take them to your house. Why should dogs be littering around, biting, scaring people?"
The bench requested the counsels to allow the court to task the Union government, the state authorities and other bodies to set the process in motion.
Read more: In Telangana, case against 9, including Sarpanch, for allegedly killing 300 stray dogs
"Allow us to pass an order. We need to spend half a day with the States and Union to see whether they have a plan of action or not. The problem has multiplied a thousand times. We just want implementation of statutory provision. Allow us to do that. Allow us to work. Allow us to proceed further," the bench said.
The Supreme Court's order dated November 7, directed the authorities to capture, sterilise, vaccinate and then transfer the stray dogs in shelters. The court had said that all the public places should be free and safe, and strays should not be released. In another hearing, the court had directed that the dogs be released back in the same localities where they were taken from after sterilisation and vaccination.
The court witnessed a series of arguments in support and against the matter.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued in favour of the court's order and sought that the directions be extended to airports as well.
Many counsels argued against sheltering the dogs while the court remarked that such emotions were being seen only for dogs and animals, and not for humans.
