Law should encourage adherence not avoidance

A law should encourage adherence to its provisions, rather than avoidance of its provisions.

Any legislation, primarily, aims at bringing about not just peace and security in a society but also to curb certain practices that have the potential of turning harmful and detrimental to the interest of the public at large.

But a common and a fallacious perception related to law is that it is almost always punitive. It is by and large believed that laws are restrictive in temperament and are implemented to make certain the prevalence of order in the societal set up by instilling a sense of fear among people who care for the rules and regulations. They come into play primarily after the occurrence that may bring to mind a sense of detestation, threaten public peace and order or endanger lives of people affected by it.

But there are rules and regulations that are preventive in character, are deterrent to the commission of crime or aim at ensuring public safety. The Chandigarh Administration, too, has its own controls and regulations in place to prevent disturbance and disorganisation in the city.

It has the Chandigarh Registration of Pet Dogs Bylaws that ostensibly aims at ensuring not just the well-being of the pets, but also the safety of the people around. Among other things, the bylaws make it clear that an owner is required to keep the dog protected by getting it vaccinated against rabies from a veterinary practitioner.

Taking up the issue of stray dogs in Sukhna Lake case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court too directed all the dog owners to register their pets with the municipal authorities. The Bench added that the authorities, in turn, were required to issue tokens to the owners.

More candid than candied, the Bench asserted that stray dogs were a common sight in public places, including parks, roads and streets. The incidents of dog bite, too, were not uncommon, with children belonging to the weaker sections more vulnerable. Yet, the municipal authorities failed to seriously address the issue for putting an end to menace in the areas under their jurisdictions.

It is not in the domain of debate that both the bylaws and the High Court directions on strict implementation of the legal provisions are aimed at bringing the system of keeping pet dogs under the ambit of law for making it more methodical and orderly.

The fact that the directions are in the larger public interest and in sync with the constitutional scheme is an actuality that is not in the realm of doubt. It is undoubtedly the fundamental duty of all the citizens under Article 51-A of the Constitution to have compassion for living creatures. The state government, too, is required to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife in accordance with Article 48-A of the Constitution.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in its judgment on the “animal kingdom” also quoted Mahatma Gandhi as saying, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

The Bench in the same judgment ruled: “We have to show compassion towards all living creatures. Animals may be mute but we as a society have to speak on their behalf. No pain or agony should be caused to the animals…. The animals including avian and aquatics have a right to life and bodily integrity, honour and dignity. Animals cannot be treated merely as property”.

Yet, the dog bylaws refuse to make a clear cut departure from the repugnant practice of placing the pet dogs in the category of inanimate objects. The High Court in the animal kingdom judgment asserted “all the animals have honour and dignity”. Regrettably, the notification issued by the local government department sloppily uses terms such as “dispose of” and “open sale” for a pet dog as if it was a “seized” item

The notification reads: “If the dog is seized/detained under these bylaws, the owner shall have to pay maintenance charges at the rate of Rs 100 per day to claim the dog. However, if the breach continues beyond seven days or the dog is not claimed within seven days, the registration shall be liable to be cancelled by the registration authority and the seized dog shall be disposed of through open sale…”

The Administration needs to understand that the problem revolves around the growing number of stray dogs in the city. But its bylaws, instead of leashing the problem, aim at putting the bite on the owners.

The fact that the bylaws oppose the public purpose for which theses were required to be framed is an actuality that cannot be relegated to the zone of doubt. The bylaws have been framed for regulating the “registration and control of pet dogs in Chandigarh” and in a slapdash fashion say little about stray dogs.

The detrimental nature of the bylaws becomes not so difficult to comprehend and its stark unsightliness exhibits itself with full force when it says: “A family may keep up to a maximum of two dogs”. Any interpretation of the word “may” as an optional course of action is negated by mandatory undertaking required to be given by the owner that “I do not have more than two dogs”.

The bylaw makers in the process appear to have completely misled themselves into believing that the same would not discourage the adoption of stray dogs. Going by the bylaws, residents and activist willing to work in “species’ best interest” will find their hands leashed in view of the explicit prohibition on keeping more than two dogs. At most, they will be able to adopt two stray dogs, while leaving others exposed to the perils of facing the wheels of a speeding car. On the contrary, the adoption of more than two dogs would have ensured their vaccination and their right to life.

The quandary manifests itself in yet another manner. Do the lawmakers expect the owners or adopters of more than a couple of stray dogs to push them out of their homes on to the streets? The bylaws under the circumstances need to be revisited.

Law & Order

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has tilted the scales of justice in favour of expeditious trial for bringing about a balance between the interests of the accused and the society. It has made it clear that the trial Courts are required to expiate the proceedings by holding a trial on a day-to-day basis after allocating “block of dates” and initiating coercive steps for securing the presence of witnesses. The High Court has also directed the trial Courts to take appropriate action in case of non-appearance of official witnesses.

The directions to the trial Courts are based observations made by the Supreme Court in “Doongar Singh v State of Rajasthan”, “State of UP v Shambhu Nath Singh and others”, “Hussain and another v the Union of India” and “Thana Singh v Central Bureau of Narcotics”.

Referring to the judgments, the High Court, in one of the cases, directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the recording of prosecution evidence preferably within four months by conducting a trial on a day-to-day basis by allocating block of dates for the trial as directed by the Supreme Court.