The order requires trained veterinarians to provide timely medical care and insists that vulnerable or weak animals be housed separately “as far as possible.”
The Supreme Court on Wednesday evening issued a detailed written order of its August 11 verdict, expanding on earlier oral directions and setting out stringent safeguards for the welfare of captured stray dogs – stressing that at no stage should the animals be subjected to mistreatment, cruelty, overcrowding, starvation, or neglect.
The release of the detailed order coincided with the transfer of the suo motu case on the stray dog menace from the bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan to a new three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath.
Reiterating that all stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) must be rounded up and housed in shelters “at the earliest,” the court prohibited the release of any captured dogs back to the streets.
Authorities, it said, must prevent overcrowding, ensure constant care.
“At no stage should these dogs be subjected to any mistreatment, cruelty or deplorable standards of care,” the bench declared in the order, as it directed civic agencies and all personnel deployed at dog shelters and pounds to prevent overcrowding, to maintain continuous monitoring of animals and to ensure adequate, regular feeding.
The order requires trained veterinarians to provide timely medical care and insists that vulnerable or weak animals be housed separately “as far as possible.”
The written direction goes further than the oral order in spelling out minimum staffing standards, record-keeping and identification procedures.
Authorities must ensure that “at least two responsible personnels are present at the shelter/pound at all times” and ought to draw up a duty roster to guarantee round-the-clock supervision. All captured animals must be earmarked and logged so they can be identified later; the court warned that any failure leading to a stray’s re-release would attract “the strictest of action” against the responsible official and any private individual involved.
The bench also recognised the public anxiety that led it to take up the matter and emphasised that the round-up exercise is the product of prolonged deliberation, not an impulsive move.
The court said it decided to act only after it was satisfied that there had been a “systematic failure of the concerned authorities over the past two decades to address an issue that strikes at the heart of public safety.” It warned that without decisive action, “another two decades” of neglect would be passed on to future generations.
Balancing human safety with animal welfare, the court rejected what it called “virtue signalling” by some stakeholders, urging genuine supporters to volunteer in shelters.
“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 called on the public and animal-welfare organisations to assist the authorities in running the shelters responsibly.
Article source: hindustantimes.com
