The recent directive from our Supreme Court to remove stray dogs from public spaces like schools and hospitals has truly stirred a pot of diverse emotions. Reading about the outrage from animal rights activists, dog lovers, and various NGOs, as reported by the Free Press Journal "Bench Did Not Hear Any Party": Lawyers, Activists, Animal Lovers Express Outrage After SC Orders Removal Of Stray Dogs From Public Spaces; Call It 'A Dark Day', I find myself reflecting on the complexities of such decisions.
Advocate Vivek Sharma's concern about the strain on resources—questioning how we fund animal management when human needs are often unmet—highlights a critical practical challenge. Similarly, Gauri Maulekhi, a Trustee at People for Animals India, expressed her shock, pointing out that the bench did not hear all parties and disregarded comprehensive roadmaps already submitted for managing dogs through sterilisation and vaccination. Her assessment that the order for fencing these areas within eight weeks is “unrealistic” and a “nightmare for the administration” resonates deeply. It’s also notable that institutions like IITs, JNU, and AIIMS have already been managing neutered and vaccinated dogs responsibly. Advocate and petitioner Nanita Sharma voiced her dismay, appealing for “divine justice” for voiceless animals. Even 'Street Dogs of Bombay' called it “A Dark Day for Stray Lives” on Instagram. These voices underscore a profound disconnect between legal pronouncements and on-ground realities.
I find it particularly striking how the Supreme Court's stance seems to have shifted. Initially, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took suo motu cognisance, leading to a harsh order. This was later stayed by a three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath, which included Justices Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, observing that prohibiting the release of sterilised and vaccinated dogs was “too harsh.” Yet, the most recent order, issued by the same bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, marks a reversal, expanding the scope of relocation nationwide. This back-and-forth illustrates the inherent difficulty in balancing public safety with animal welfare.
The core idea I want to convey is this — take a moment to notice that I had brought up thoughts and suggestions on systemic animal management years ago. In 2018, I discussed how the city of Jinan, China, implemented a “Dog Raising Credit Score System” with microchips and traceable collars, effectively disciplining dog owners by assigning and deducting points for behavior How This City ( Jinan - China ) , Is Disciplining Dog Owners. This wasn't merely about removal but about accountability and proactive management.
Even earlier, in 2017, I pondered the idea of an “Aadhar-like ID for all cattle” Next , expect what ?, which, while focused on cattle, touches upon the broader concept of comprehensive animal identification and tracking. I had already predicted the challenges of piecemeal solutions and the need for a holistic approach to animal population control and welfare. Now, seeing how things have unfolded with the stray dog issue, it's striking how relevant those earlier insights still are.
Furthermore, my observations on the Supreme Court's suo motu cognisance and the scope of its concern, as highlighted in my blogs like “Second Class Citizens?” Second Class Citizens ? and “SC takes cognizance only after 9 years!” SC takes cognizance only after 9 years!, resonate with the criticism that the bench “did not hear any party” in this recent directive. It raises questions about the thoroughness of the process and the consideration of all stakeholders. In a similar vein, my reflections on “Bulldozer Justice” Bulldozer Justice : Cannot be an instrument of “ Punishment before Trial emphasized the paramount importance of due process and not enacting punishment before trial—a principle that should extend to policies affecting voiceless creatures and the communities that care for them.
Reflecting on it today, I feel a sense of validation for stressing the need for well-thought-out, systemic solutions rather than reactive measures. There is a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas, because they clearly hold value in the current context. Solutions must be comprehensive, considering both human safety and animal welfare, and developed through inclusive dialogue with all parties involved, ensuring that the judicial process truly embodies justice for all, including our animal companions.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment