In Hindi films, there's that famous lament: 'Tareekh pe tareekh'-a dig at India's glacial legal system. But on the issue of stray dogs and their future, the line now reads 'Order pe order'-orders that are not just bizarre, but fly in the face of the Constitution's spirit against anthropocentrism. Last week, the apex court directed all states and UTs to ensure the removal of stray dogs from many public spaces-and said such dogs cannot be released back even after sterilisation.
This sudden change of heart has angered people because the same bench, on August 22, had modified the mindless August 11 order and issued a clear, scientific and balanced directive-upholding both public health and humane treatment of animals. The court had said stray dogs should be vaccinated, dewormed and returned to their original areas while rabid or dangerously aggressive dogs should be immunised and confined to designated shelters. In the intervening months, nothing has changed among most state governments.
And yet again, the court has failed to identify the real culprits for their failure to implement ABC, their misuse of funds and their inability to provide adequate shelters and personnel. If shelters are already full, is the court effectively promoting culling or pushing dogs outside city limits-a move that will create a dangerous situation for those living there? What's more absurd is the reluctance to listen to animal lovers. This flip-flop on a serious public-health issue-and the choice to let states and municipalities off the hook instead of whipping them to act-is so egregious that it's surprising it comes from the top court. Worse, it raises the uncomfortable possibility that vested interests are steering the judiciary.
This sudden change of heart has angered people because the same bench, on August 22, had modified the mindless August 11 order and issued a clear, scientific and balanced directive-upholding both public health and humane treatment of animals. The court had said stray dogs should be vaccinated, dewormed and returned to their original areas while rabid or dangerously aggressive dogs should be immunised and confined to designated shelters. In the intervening months, nothing has changed among most state governments.
And yet again, the court has failed to identify the real culprits for their failure to implement ABC, their misuse of funds and their inability to provide adequate shelters and personnel. If shelters are already full, is the court effectively promoting culling or pushing dogs outside city limits-a move that will create a dangerous situation for those living there? What's more absurd is the reluctance to listen to animal lovers. This flip-flop on a serious public-health issue-and the choice to let states and municipalities off the hook instead of whipping them to act-is so egregious that it's surprising it comes from the top court. Worse, it raises the uncomfortable possibility that vested interests are steering the judiciary.
