The judgements discuss the control of stray dogs and related laws in India. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Rules adopted under Section 38 of the Act, specifically the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, protect stray dogs and make it illegal for an individual, Resident Welfare Association (RWA), or estate management to remove or transfer them.
What is the objective of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act?
The Supreme Court has observed that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act provides for the sterilization of stray dogs to ensure the safety of the people. The Court directed all States to sterilize and vaccinate all the stray dogs under the supervision of the Animal Welfare Board of India to control their population and the spread of rabies.
The Court has observed that while dogs deserve kindness and should not be killed mercilessly and indiscriminately, the lives of the people must also be secured. Further, no one should be subjected to suffering resulting from a dog bite resulting from the lack of proper administration.
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs People For Elimination Of Stray ... on 10 July, 2017
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.2 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 691/2009
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-12-2008
in ASWP No. 6257/2006 passed by the High Court Of Bombay)
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PEOPLE FOR ELIMINATION OF STRAY TROUBLES. & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 1627/2009 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 1740/2009 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 4453/2013 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 11467/2009 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 5899/2013 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 5900/2013 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 13004/2009 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 13772/2012 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 17112/2013 (XIV)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 15931/2016 (XI -A)
W.P.(C) No. 599/2015 (PIL-W)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16880/2015 (XI -A)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17084/2016 (XI -A)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17078/2016 (XI -A)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17292/2016 (XI -A)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17110/2016 (XI -A)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17146/2016 (XI -A)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17153/2016 (XI -A)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17289/2016 (XI -A)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16985/2016 (XI -A)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17271/2016 (XI -A)
W.P.(C) No. 805/2015 (PIL-W)
W.P.(C) No. 808/2015 (PIL-W)
Date : 10-07-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
Signature Not Verified
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
On 3.3.2017, the learned counsel for the State of Kerala had assured this Court that the report submitted by Justice Sri Jagan Committee (for short, 'the Committee') with regard to victim compensation that has been caused due to bite of stray dogs shall be implemented within four weeks. It is submitted by Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Committee that though the concerned Committee has so far submitted nine reports, yet in actuality effectively there are eight reports, for one report relates to an area situated within the Union Territory of Puducherry and, therefore, the same should be ignored. Learned counsel would further submit that 752 claims have been lodged before the Committee out of which 154 had been adjudicated and in some of them compensation has been granted and some have been rejected. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Kerala submits that so far 18 claims have been made good and compensation has been paid. In respect of one claim, he would contend, that the High Court has intervened and passed an order of stay because of the quantum and the determination of the liability. As far as the other claims are concerned which have been finalised by the Committee, we would like Mr. V. Giri to file a response to the same within four weeks hence. The reports of the Comittee be supplied to all the parites.
Another aspect has arisen for consideration. On the earlier occasion, it was submitted by Mr. Sabu Steephen, the petitioner appearing in-person in Writ Petition 805 of 2015 that there should be construction of shelter homes for stray dogs. Learned counsel for the State had taken time to obtain instructions in the matter.
Today, Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel has filed an affidavit on behalf of the competent authority of the State that steps have been taken to have a 'dog zoo' in each of the district panchayats. The said affidavit is contested by Mr. Anand Grover and Mr. Gonsalves learned senior counsel and Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India stating that there cannot be a concept of 'zoo' for stray dogs under the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (for brevity 'the Rules') which have been framed under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (For brevity, 'the 1960 Act'). They have drawn our attention to Section 11(3) of the 1960 Act which reads as follows :-
“(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to -
(a) the dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding or noseroping of any animal in the prescribed manner, or
(b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers 20[by such other methods as may be prescribed] or
(c) the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the time being in force; or
(d) any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or
(e) the commission or omission of any act in the course of the destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.” According to them, Section 3(b) specifically deals with destuction of stray dogs in a particular manner and therein Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules would come into play. Rules 9 and 10 of the aforesaid Rules read as under :-
“9. Euthanasia of Street Dogs: Incurably ill and mortally wounded dogs as diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian appointed by the committee shall be euthanised during specified hours in a humane manner by administering sodium pentathol for adult dogs and Thiopental Introperitoneal for puppies by a qualified veterinarian or euthanised in any other humane manner approved by Animal Welfare Board of India. No dog shall be euthanised in the presence of another dog. The person responsible for euthanising shall make sure that the animal is dead, before disposal.
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Rules adopted under Section 38 of the Act, specifically the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, protect stray dogs and make it illegal for an individual, Resident Welfare Association (RWA), or estate management to remove or transfer them.
The Central Government issued an Office Memorandum in 2006 that included detailed rules against government employees who commit acts of animal cruelty. The restrictions make the government employee vulnerable to prosecution under the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act.
Nuisance caused by stray dogs can be a complex issue since animals deserve compassion too. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore the plight of the affected people. Therefore, the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act ensure to strike a balance between the two. It is recommended to engage the services of a lawyer for this as they can ensure the best possible outcome.
189+ Lawyers are online 
