New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday initiated a suo motu public interest litigation to monitor the implementation of Supreme Court directions on managing
stray dogs in the national capital.
A division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta issued notices to the Delhi government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Union government.
The bench asked the Delhi government and MCD to file a detailed status report on the steps taken until July 31. The authorities must submit the report one day before the next hearing.
Court seeks balance
The bench referred to the conflict between people troubled by stray animals and those seeking their protection.
“I don’t know about Delhi, but in Rajasthan, there are two groups – one against pets and the other dog lovers. We have to strike a balance. These days there is a big fight between dog lovers and dog haters. The common man is really troubled. There are dog bite incidents every day. The monkey menace is even more serious,” the bench observed.
A Delhi government counsel told the court that authorities had started work on the issue. However, the bench expressed concern about the growing number of stray dogs across the city.
Dogs inside court
The bench said several dogs could also be seen within the Delhi High Court complex.
“There are too many stray dogs. Even in the High Court premises, I see many dogs wearing collars. Are they trained dogs? Does the High Court own them? Whenever I visit the S Block, I find several dogs there. Are they pets? I don’t know. They are Indian dogs,” the bench remarked.
The court listed the case for its next hearing on August 3.
Supreme Court directions
The proceedings followed the Supreme Court’s May 19 judgment on the management of stray dogs across the country. The apex court had ordered all high courts to register suo motu cases and monitor compliance within their jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court ruled that authorities must not return stray dogs removed from schools, hospitals, bus depots, railway stations and other crowded public places to the same locations after sterilisation and vaccination.
It also allowed the euthanasia of rabid or severely aggressive dogs in accordance with the law and ordered authorities to create designated feeding zones.
The Supreme Court made state chief secretaries personally responsible for compliance. It also allowed high courts to take action, including contempt proceedings, against officials who deliberately ignored its directions.
