.jpeg)
Amid a debate over rising incidents of stray dog bites across the country, the Supreme Court on Tuesday “advised’ a Noida resident, who had alleged that she was being harassed for feeding community dogs, that she should open a shelter in her own house and feed them there.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal moved by one Reema Shah challenging a March 3 order of the Allahabad High Court.
As soon as it took up the matter on Tuesday, the bench asked Shah’s counsel, “Should we leave every lane, every road open for these large-hearted people?”
Making its displeasure evident, the court added, “There is all space for these animals, no space for humans.” It then asked, “Why don't you (appellant) feed them in your own house? Nobody is stopping you."
The counsel submitted that the appellant was subjected to harassment and was unable to feed community dogs, in accordance with animal birth control rules, which puts onus on resident welfare associations, apartment owner associations, and local body representatives to make necessary arrangements for the feeding of community animals residing in their premises or their areas.
This did not go down well with the bench, which said, “We give you a suggestion to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house."
The counsel then said the municipality was creating feeding places in Greater Noida but not in Noida.
When the counsel submitted that feeding spots could be set up in places not frequented by people, the bench asked him when he goes for cycling in the morning. It then added, “Try doing it (cycle) and see what happens.”
As the counsel said, he goes on morning walks and sees several dogs, the bench said that “morning walkers are also at risk” and “cycle riders and two-wheelers are at greater risk”.
Shah had earlier approached the HC seeking directions to the Noida Authority and others not to harass her, other feeders as well as any other institution that feeds community dogs and animals, both in her society and outside it in Noida. She had also sought directions to implement the provisions of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, and cautioned, keeping in view the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Disposing of the petition, the HC had said, “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 the common man, such that their movement on streets are not hampered by attacks by these street dogs. A balanced approach would be needed such that not only the concern of prevention of animal cruelty is addressed, but at the same time, the interest of the common man is also protected.”
“We expect the authorities of the state to show due sensitivity to the concerns raised in the writ petition and to ensure that necessary steps are taken in public interest to protect the cause raised... and also the concern of the common man in moving on the streets,” it had added.
The court had stressed, “This observation is necessary because there are many instances of attacks by street dogs on the common man of late, which have resulted in loss of lives and grave inconvenience to pedestrians.”
