In a clear, scientific and balanced order - upholding both public health and humane treatment of animals - the Supreme Court on Friday directed stray dogs be vaccinated, dewormed and released back into their original areas, while rabid or dangerously aggressive dogs be immunised and confined to designated shelters. This overturns its Aug 11 directive - an irrational, inhumane push towards culling in the name of shelter. By endorsing the established 'vaccinate-sterilise-release' approach, the court has placed the onus squarely back on municipal authorities who are legally bound to enforce Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, which already prescribe this method.
At a time when the false binary of 'stray dogs vs humans' is routine, it's vital to broaden focus on the ABC programme through a public health lens, one that encourages participation from all. The court's reiteration of feeding zones is welcome. But authorities must recognise that all dogs can't be herded into one place. Instead, multiple spots should be identified in consultation with feeders to prevent conflict. There's also need for clear, scientifically grounded criteria to define 'aggressive dogs' so that the court's order is not misused to propagate prejudice. What is unclear is the rationale for directing that 'each individual dog lover and each NGO that has approached this court shall deposit a sum of ₹25,000 and ₹2 lakh respectively'.
Hopefully, the judgment will bring peace to the streets and jolt municipalities into doing what they should be doing anyway. Their neglect created this problem. Unless they now commit funds and manpower to tackle it in a time-bound manner, the issue will only deepen, and India's goal of becoming rabies-free by 2030 will stay unfulfilled.
At a time when the false binary of 'stray dogs vs humans' is routine, it's vital to broaden focus on the ABC programme through a public health lens, one that encourages participation from all. The court's reiteration of feeding zones is welcome. But authorities must recognise that all dogs can't be herded into one place. Instead, multiple spots should be identified in consultation with feeders to prevent conflict. There's also need for clear, scientifically grounded criteria to define 'aggressive dogs' so that the court's order is not misused to propagate prejudice. What is unclear is the rationale for directing that 'each individual dog lover and each NGO that has approached this court shall deposit a sum of ₹25,000 and ₹2 lakh respectively'.
Hopefully, the judgment will bring peace to the streets and jolt municipalities into doing what they should be doing anyway. Their neglect created this problem. Unless they now commit funds and manpower to tackle it in a time-bound manner, the issue will only deepen, and India's goal of becoming rabies-free by 2030 will stay unfulfilled.
