Why stray dog removal is a must
IN 1960, acclaimed dancer and animal welfare activist Rukmini Devi Arundale authored the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The PCA Act made India one of the first countries to provide legal protection to animals. A visionary piece of legislation, the PCA Act does not give ‘rights’ to animals but aims to prevent “unnecessary suffering" — and not suffering that may arise out of human necessity or to uphold human rights. It, therefore, permits the humane use, ownership, management and killing of animals. This is also a global precedent.
Most significantly, the PCA Act recognises the negative impacts of stray dogs on society as well as their own suffering as homeless animals, prohibits their abandonment/ maintenance/ release on the streets for any reason by any entity, and allows for their euthanasia. Rukmini Devi could hardly have imagined the state of affairs in the country as they stand today — millions of homeless dogs on streets, a staggering number of stray dog attacks on people and human-dog conflict at its peak.
All relevant Acts, statutory provisions and Supreme Court judgments for public health, safety and animal and disease control lay down the same principles and laws — the complete and permanent removal of all stray dogs/ animals from streets. Despite this, the reason we find ourselves in this mess today is due to the Animal Birth Control Rules — a set of subordinate rules under the PCA Act. They were notified by the Ministry of Culture in 2001 then headed by Maneka Gandhi — a ministry that has nothing to do with public health or animal control. The rules were amended in 2023 and notified by the Department of Animal Husbandry, another department equally disconnected from public health and safety.
The ABC rules operate in an ideological narrative of ‘evil humanity’, ‘innocent dogs’ and ‘heroic animal rights saviours’ to the rescue. Another particularly absurd aspect of the ABC rules is that they exist in a legal vacuum and are not backed by any existing Act, as there is no statute or constitutional provision that envisions or allows the maintenance of stray dogs on the streets for any reason, under any circumstances.
Citizens are guaranteed the fundamental right to life, liberty, freedom of movement and safe, disease-free and obstruction-free public places via numerous statutes and SC judgments. However, these rights have been rendered meaningless because they cannot be experienced by citizens on the ground due to the presence of stray animals. Yet, the ABC policy has been allowed for over two decades.
What is shocking is not that the court has directed the removal of all stray dogs from the streets, but that the attempt to make our streets and public places safe, clean and stray animal-free is seemingly alien, supposedly impractical and even objectionable! Such is the extent of our acceptance of squalor, disease and death, especially for the weakest and most vulnerable people in society, who suffer stray dogs the most.
Portraying and justifying the forced homelessness of dogs as compassionate, noble and even pious, while framing efforts to place animals in appropriate environments as inhumane and cruel, is whataboutery at its disingenuous best. In this context, the SC order directing the removal of stray dogs from the streets is not a knee-jerk thoughtless reaction but the restoration of rights of citizens granted by Article 21 and genuine animal welfare principles, after 25 years of the failed, unconstitutional and harmful ABC policy.
Meghna Uniyal is Director, Humane Foundation for People and Animals.
Comments