Delhi HC initiates suo motu PIL on stray dogs management
What's the story
The Delhi High Court has taken a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) to ensure compliance with Supreme Court orders regarding the removal of stray dogs from public places. The Supreme Court had earlier directed the removal of these animals from educational institutions, hospitals, bus stands, railway stations, and other such places. It had warned that non-compliance could lead to contempt proceedings against officials.
Court's directive
Report to be submitted by July 31
Today, a division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta asked the Delhi government and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to submit a detailed report by July 31.
The report should include steps taken in compliance with Supreme Court directions till now.
The bench also issued notices to the Union Government and National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in this regard.
Authorities questioned
Court's concern over stray dogs on premises
During the hearing, the court asked the Delhi government's counsel about measures taken for stray dogs' birth control, sterilization, and vaccination.
It also questioned how many dog pounds and shelters have been established in the city.
The bench observed that there are many stray dogs on court premises, raising concerns about their ownership and training status.
HC
'We have to strike a balance'
"There are too many stray dogs...Sorry to say but I find, I don't know but even in High Court premises, there are many dogs with belt. Are they trained dogs? Does the High Court own them?" the bench asked.
"We have to strike a balance....Public is really troubled...Every day there are dog bites... monkey menace is even more serious," the bench added.
The court has asked authorities to submit a report before the next hearing on August 3.
Monitoring compliance
Supreme Court's order on stray dogs' removal
The Supreme Court had earlier empowered all jurisdictional High Courts to monitor compliance with its directions.
It had said that non-compliance or willful disobedience of its orders could lead to contempt proceedings against officials.
The court said that entrusting High Courts with this responsibility would ensure effective enforcement of these directions while also enabling the formulation of context-sensitive measures suited to the peculiar needs of each state and region.