"Space For Animals... But For Humans?" Top Court On Feeding Stray Dogs

An irked Supreme Court told a Noida resident - who had alleged harassment while feeding stray dogs - to do so in their own home. "There is space for these animals... but no space for humans. Should we leave every lane, every road, open for these large-hearted people? Why don't you feed them in your house," Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said Tuesday.

"We will give you that suggestion... open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house," the Supreme Court shot back this afternoon, after the petitioner claimed the local municipality had created such places in Greater Noida but not in Noida.

The top court was hearing a plea - related to a March 25 order of the Allahabad High Court - alleging harassment while feeding of stray dogs in a community in Noida. The petitioner said they were not allowed to feed the dogs, in violation of the Animal Birth Control Rules.

Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules deals with feeding of community animals, including dogs, and puts the onus on resident welfare associations or apartment owners associations.

RWAs and/or AOAs are expected to designate areas in the colony to feed the animals and to do so at specified times only. These areas and times must not impact children and the elderly.

The feeding, and care of, stray animals, particularly dogs, has been a contentious issue over the past few years. There have been several reports of stray dogs attacking and even killing children, such as a teen boy in Madhya Pradesh's Rewa last week and another in Nagpur in Maharashtra.

With that danger in mind, the court asked the petitioner, "You go cycling in the morning? Try doing that and see what happens..." The petitioner said they went on morning walks, to which the court responded, "Morning walkers are also at risk. Bicycle riders are at greater risk."

In the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner had sought directions to implement rules regarding feeding of stray dogs in line with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The court tried to balance the two issues, i.e., feeding of the dogs and safety of people.

"While protection of street dogs would be warranted in accordance with the provisions of the applicable statute... at the same time, the authorities will have to bear in mind the concern of common man, such that their movement on streets are not hampered by attacks..."

The High Court, therefore, said it expected the state authorities to exhibit "due sensitivity" to the concerns of the petitioner and the common man on the streets.

Trending News