SC refuses urgent hearing on petition challenging Delhi MC notification on rounding up of stray dogs

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused urgent listing of a petition challenging a Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) notification on rounding up of stray dogs.

The plea was mentioned by a lawyer for urgent listing before a Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi which turned down the request, saying a three-judge Bench had already reserved its order on the issue of interim stay in the matter.

The application accused the MCD of issuing the impugned notification without waiting for orders of the three-judge Bench.

A three-judge Bench, led by Justice Vikram Nath had on August 14 reserved its orders on petitions seeking a stay on the top court’s August 11 order in a suo motu case of rounding up stray dogs in Delhi-NCR and sending them to dog shelters with immediate effect.

“The whole problem is because of the inaction of local authorities... Rules are framed, but no implementation is carried out, creating a problem today. On one hand, humans are suffering, on other hand animal lovers want dogs protected,” said the Bench – which also included Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria.

On August 11, a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had issued directions to permanently relocate all canines from streets to shelters "at the earliest".

“We are conscious and sensitive of co-existence. The idea behind co-existence is not the existence of one’s life at the cost of the other,” it said in the order released on Wednesday.

Flagging the attacks faced by the most vulnerable sections of society, it had said, “We are at pains to take cognizance of the experiences of visually impaired persons, young children, elderly persons, people from humble backgrounds who are not able to afford even a day’s meal, let alone the medical expenses.”

"A virtual divide is being attempted to be created between ‘animal lovers’ and persons indifferent towards animals. But the heart of the problem remains unanswered, for all practical reasons. As a court, our heart pains equally for everyone. We condemn those who, beneath the cloak of “love and care” for the voiceless, pursue the warmth of self-congratulation. The directions given by us, as a court which functions for the welfare of the people, are both in the interest of humans as well as dogs. This is not personal,” the order of Justice Pardiwala-led Bench had said.

"This is the time to act. All these animal activists and all these so-called animal lovers… will they bring back all those children who have fallen prey to rabies? Will they put life back in those children? Let's take a practical view of the matter. When the situation demands, you have to act,” it had on August 11 said, refusing to entertain intervention applications of animal rights activists.