Sitting amid the blackened remains of his home, 32-year-old Nikesh Gawali carefully broke open a half-melted plastic box with a screwdriver. His hands shook slightly, not out of fear, but out of hope. “I’m trying to find my daughter Aarti’s gold earrings,” he said quietly, still focused on the box. “She’s just five. I got them made recently after months of labour work.” The plastic box, warped and blackened by heat, was one of the few things left from his two-room house on the outskirts of Dhamangaon village . All around him lay ash, broken tin sheets and charred wooden beams. The walls had cracked under the heat and the front room’s tin roof had caved in completely. What remained was a blackened debris all around - almost nothing to suggest a home once stood there. Nikesh earns his living as an agricultural labourer, like many in the village. Work is uncertain and depends on the season. Those earrings weren’t just jewellery - they were a small dream, a reward for his hard work,...
The Supreme Court of India on Friday considered a petition filed challenging a decision of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court against feeding stray dogs in public spaces.
The High Court had issued various directions to the authorities concerning capturing, sheltering and feeding stray dogs. It also had directed that no citizen of Nagpur and areas surrounding it shall feed or make any attempt to feed stray dogs in public places, gardens etc. It also directed the Municipal Commissioner to ensure no such feeding at any place except the own homes of such persons. The HC had also directed the concerned authorities under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to detain all stray dogs wandering in the public streets.
In the Apex Court, a bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J K Maheshwari refused to pass an interim order that no coercive steps in pursuance of the High Court order should be taken in the meanwhile.
“The order is an omnibus direction which may require some modification. If stray dogs are not fed, they will become more aggressive. We need to have the assistance of the Municipal Corporation. At the same time, there has to be checks,” Justice Khanna orally remarked during the hearing. He also remarked that the portion of the order that prohibits feeding dogs altogether unless adopted needs to be changed. “Adoption should not mean that the stray dogs will have to be brought to the homes of the feeders,” Justice Khanna orally said.
The bench listed the matter next on November 16 and directed the petitioners to serve the copies on the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and the Animal Welfare Board. However, the Bench refused to grant interim relief and directed that coercive steps would be taken against people found to violate the HC order till the next date.
The Petitioners alleged that these directions not only adversely affect the rights of street dogs, care-givers but are also contrary to both statutory provisions as well as the orders of the supreme court.
The plea in the Apex Court highlights that there was no legislation which prohibits feeding of stray dogs or otherwise makes it a penal offence and thus contends to direct statutory authorities to act contrary to law.
It states that blanket direction for detention of stray dogs is illegal as per the rule 7 of Animal Birth Control Rules make it abundantly clear that capturing/detention of dogs shall be based on “Specific complaints” about nuisance or dog bite.
The petition refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A. Nagaraja which recognized that animals’ right to life and dignity and the right to get protection from human beings. The caveat filed by Vijay Talewar. Adv Shakul Ghatole appeared in the Supreme Court for the petitioner.
Comments
Post a Comment