Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the Union of India and other authorities in a PIL seeking direction from Court to the concerned authorities to protect children from falling prey to the attacks by stray dogs. Court has given four weeks time to the respondents to filed their reply.
The notice was issued by a bench consisting of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant while hearing a PIL filed by a Kerala based NGO – Janaseva Sisubhavan.
The PIL has been filed with a prayer:
Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or direction by directing to the Respondents to take immediate steps to protect the Children from the dangerous attacks of stray dogs
|Case No.||Writ Petition (Civil) No.808/2015|
|Case Title||Aluva Janaseva @ Janaseva Sisubhavan Thr. Its Secretary v. Union Of India And Ors.|
Appearing for the NGO, advocate V K Biju submitted before the court that children should be protected from the stray dogs as they become easy and innocent targets for them. He sought the implementation of Sections 9(f) and 11(3)(b)(c) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (check bottom) and Section 438 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. he also submitted certain newspaper clippings which show that the children have been bitten by the stray dogs and have suffered serious injuries.
Petitioner NGO has also contended that government has not come up with any compensation policy for those who have been victims of stray dogs.
Agreeing with the submissions of the counsel, Court ordered:
Appreciating the submission that the children are fundamental embodiment of human race and they deserve protection from any kind of attack by the stray dogs, we are inclined to issue notice.
Issue notice on the writ petition, as also on the prayer for interim relief. The Registry is directed to fix a returnable date within four weeks.
Earlier on November 18, while hearing a different matter, a bench of the Supreme Court also presided over by Justice Dipak Misra had asked the municipal corporations and other authorities across India to follow the laws related to the care of animals and their control till the Court finally decides on the issue of culling of animals. Bench had observed:
There can be no trace of doubt that there has to be compassion for dogs and they should not be killed in an indiscriminate manner, but indubitably the lives of the human beings are to be saved and one should not suffer due to dog bite because of administrative lapse.
The Petitioner NGO – Janaseva Sisubhavan has also filed an IA in the PIL Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India – WP (C) No. 599 of 2015 which has been filed against the direction to cull stray dogs in Kerala.
Petitioner NGO has sought implementation of Sections 9(f) and 11(3)(b)(c) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 438 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
Section 9(f) provides:
Section 9 – Functions of the Board
(f) to take all such steps as the Board may think fit to ensure that unwanted animals are destroyed by local authorities, whenever it is necessary to do so, either instantaneously or after being rendered insensible to pain of suffering;
Section 11(3)(b)(c) provides:
Section 11 – Treating animals cruelly:
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to–
(b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or 8 [by such other methods as may be prescribed]; or
(c) the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the time being in force; or
Section 438 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 provides:
Section 438 – Power to dispose of stray pigs and dogs
The Secretary may order for the seizure and destruction of unlicensed pigs or dogs straying in the municipal area shall make such arrangements therefor as he may deem fit.
Read order here.
Latest posts by Mohit Singh (see all)
- PIL before SC seeks J Lodha Panel’s recommendations to be declared unconstitutional + reference to 7 judge bench - January 6, 2017
- PILs on SC’s last day of the year: national liquor policy and safety from telecom equipment - December 16, 2016
- Delhi High Court asks RBI, Centre of their view on card payment surcharge - November 17, 2016