SC's sassy remark amidst stray dog debate: 'Why not ask dogs to carry certificates?'

New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The Supreme Court heard the case of stray dogs on Tuesday. During the hearing, a petitioner told the court that there are many stray dogs in his area, who chase each other and bark all night, preventing him from sleeping and his children from studying.

The petitioner complained to the authorities about the matter, but they said they could only perform vaccination and sterilization. He also wrote to the NHRC, but no action was taken. The petitioner's lawyer argued that the Animal Birth Control Rules (ABC Rules) apply only to a specific area. Dogs are released after sterilization or vaccination.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan said that it is globally accepted that an effective sterilization system is essential to address the problem of stray dogs. While this system has been successful in places like Jaipur and Goa, sterilization is not effective in most cities. Sterilization reduces dog aggression, but the problem is that it is not being implemented properly in many cities. To improve this, transparency must be introduced and people must be held accountable.

There should be a system in place where people can report stray dogs that haven't been sterilized. This should be recorded on a website, and a specific authority should act promptly on such complaints.

Responding to Prashant Bhushan's suggestion, Justice Sandeep Mehta commented, "Why can't we ask the dogs to carry their own certificates?" Bhushan pointed out that some of the court's comments could send the wrong message. For example, the same court had stated that feeders should be held responsible for dog bites, which was likely meant as a satire. Justice Vikram Nath clarified that this was not meant as a satire, but rather a serious statement.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure over a podcast on this issue by an animal rights activist and former Union Minister. The court asked Raju Ramachandran, the lawyer representing the former minister, "Just a moment ago, you were asking the court to be cautious about their comments. Do you know what kind of things your client is saying? Your client has committed contempt of court. We are not paying attention to that; this is our generosity. Have you listened to her podcast? What is her body language like? What does she say and how does she say it? You commented that the court should be cautious, but on the other hand, your client is making all kinds of comments about whoever she wants, and whoever she wants."

The Supreme Court is considering the balance between human safety, enforcement of ABC regulations, and animal rights in this case. The hearing will continue.