No one knows which dog is in what mood, says SC on animals roaming on roads

The Supreme Court's recent flagging of non-compliance by civic bodies regarding its November 7 order to relocate stray dogs from public places brings to the forefront a persistent and complex challenge faced by urban and rural India: the management of the stray animal population and ensuring public safety. This issue is not merely about animal control; it delves deep into urban governance, public health, animal welfare ethics, and the accountability of local administrative bodies.

**Background Context and What Happened:** India is home to one of the largest populations of stray dogs globally. This large population often leads to human-animal conflicts, including dog bites, rabies cases, and road accidents. The conflict is exacerbated by varying public sentiments – from compassionately feeding strays to demanding their removal due to safety concerns. Over the years, various High Courts and the Supreme Court have intervened to strike a balance. The November 7 order by the Supreme Court was a directive aimed at addressing the immediate public safety concerns arising from dogs roaming freely, mandating civic bodies to relocate them. The Court's recent observation, lamenting that "No one knows which dog is in what mood," underscores the unpredictability and inherent danger perceived, particularly for children and vulnerable populations, and highlights the urgency of its earlier directive. The Court's stern remark that civic bodies "have to implement the rules... strictly" is a clear indication of its growing impatience with the lack of executive action.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:** Several entities play crucial roles in this scenario. Firstly, the **Supreme Court** acts as the ultimate arbiter, upholding the rule of law and safeguarding fundamental rights, including the right to life (Article 21) which implicitly includes public safety. Secondly, **Civic Bodies** (Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, Panchayats) are the primary implementing agencies. They are constitutionally mandated under the 74th Amendment Act for urban local bodies (Part IXA of the Constitution) and the 73rd Amendment Act for rural local bodies (Part IX) to ensure public health, sanitation, and manage public nuisances. Their non-compliance points to systemic issues like lack of funds, personnel, or political will. Thirdly, **Animal Welfare Organizations and Activists** advocate for humane treatment, emphasizing sterilization and vaccination programs as per the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (now updated as ABC Rules, 2023), rather than culling or mass relocation without proper rehabilitation. Fourthly, the **General Public** is a critical stakeholder, encompassing both victims of dog attacks and those who care for strays, often leading to divergent views and localized conflicts. Finally, **State Governments** provide the legislative framework, funding, and oversight to civic bodies, making their role indispensable in ensuring effective implementation.

**Significance for India:** This issue holds immense significance for India. From a **public health** perspective, India accounts for a significant portion of global rabies deaths. Effective stray dog management, particularly through vaccination and sterilization, is crucial for achieving rabies elimination targets. Socially, the constant threat of dog bites impacts daily life, especially for children, and contributes to public fear and anxiety. Economically, resources are diverted to treat dog bite victims and manage the stray population. Politically and administratively, the Supreme Court's intervention highlights the critical need for **accountability and efficiency in local governance**. The inability of civic bodies to implement clear court directives signals a gap in the administrative machinery, impacting the delivery of basic public services. This also showcases the increasing trend of **judicial activism**, where the judiciary steps in to ensure executive compliance when there is a vacuum or failure in governance.

**Historical Context and Related Policies:** The legal framework for animal welfare in India largely stems from the **Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960**. This Act aims to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. More specifically, the **Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001**, notified under the PCA Act, laid down guidelines for the sterilization and immunization of stray dogs to control their population humanely. These rules were recently updated as the **Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023**, emphasizing the responsibilities of local authorities for implementing ABC programs, establishing animal birth control centres, and addressing pet dog issues. The debate often pits these humane treatment rules against public safety concerns, leading to a complex policy environment.

**Constitutional Provisions:** Several constitutional articles are relevant here. **Article 21**, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, is paramount, as public safety from animal attacks is a component of a dignified life. **Article 48A**, a Directive Principle of State Policy, mandates the State to endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife (by extension, promoting compassion for all living creatures). Crucially, **Article 51A(g)**, a Fundamental Duty, obliges every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Furthermore, the **Seventh Schedule** outlines the distribution of legislative powers: 'Local government' falls under **Entry 5 of the State List (List II)**, and 'Public health and sanitation' under **Entry 6 of the State List**. 'Prevention of cruelty to animals' is under **Entry 17 of the Concurrent List (List III)**, meaning both the Centre and states can legislate on it, but state laws require presidential assent if they contradict central laws.

**Future Implications:** The Supreme Court's firm stance is likely to put increased pressure on civic bodies to develop and implement robust stray dog management programs. This might lead to better allocation of funds, improved infrastructure for ABC programs, and more systematic relocation efforts. It could also spur state governments to provide more support and oversight to their local bodies. The long-term implication is a push towards a more balanced and humane approach to stray animal management that prioritizes both public safety and animal welfare, potentially leading to a reduction in human-animal conflicts and a healthier urban environment. However, the challenge of implementation, particularly in resource-constrained municipalities, will remain a significant hurdle, potentially inviting further judicial interventions or policy reforms.