Human rights over stray dogs

The Supreme Court has delivered a historic judgment upholding the fundamental right of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution to be protected against attacks by stray dogs in public places.

The judgement came on May 19 and upheld directions issued in November last year for the removal of stray dogs from institutional areas and prohibition of public feeding of stray dogs.

The earlier orders had been challenged by numerous NGOs and activists, citing the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules that require the release, maintenance and feeding of stray dogs wherever they are found.

Dismissing all such applications, the court upheld citizens' fundamental rights under Article 21 over any expansive interpretation of animal rights that endanger human health or safety.

It is important to understand what this judgment means for people as well as the authorities.

The Supreme Court did not uphold or strike down any rules as it was not hearing a challenge to any legislation. It laid down the constitutional basis on which all related matters are to be heard so that relevant laws are read and enforced in light of Article 21 and not unconstitutional aspects or propaganda.

Most importantly, it clarified, once and for all, that the stray dog issue is a public health and safety issue as well as a fundamental rights issue.

The judgment stated that it is the State’s “affirmative, non-negotiable and continuing duty” to “ secure citizens against threats to life and safety arising from stray dog attacks and related dangers.”

“Any failure, hesitation or administrative apathy in adopting such measures would strike at the very core of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 and would render the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens illusory, hollow and incapable of meaningful enforcement in the lived realities of society.”

While an Act represents the intent of the legislature and is passed by Parliament, subordinate rules made under an Act are only meant to further or help implement the said Act. Rules cannot create new entities nor bestow rights, and most importantly, cannot violate their own parent legislation or the Article 21 rights of citizens.

The ABC Rules are an aberration in this regard, directly violating the parent statute as well as fundamental rights of citizens. Framed ostensibly under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, the ABC rules are a law unto themselves.

They create new entities like “community dogs”, “caregivers”, etc, legislate around these concepts, grant “rights” to stray dogs and their proponents and suggest that stray dogs have equal or greater rights than people. The ABC Rules, in fact, do not implement or further the PCA Act nor any other Act in existence. The sterilization and maintenance of homeless dogs on the streets as something desirable, and even virtuous, is not envisioned anywhere under the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the notion that stray dogs possess any rights to occupy any public, private or institutional spaces. stating:

“Upon a careful examination of the relevant provisions, we are of the considered view that a proper and harmonious construction of the provisions of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, when read in conjunction with the parent enactment, namely the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, does not support the proposition that stray dogs possess an indefeasible or absolute right to occupy or remain within all categories of spaces or premises, irrespective of their nature or use,” the court said.

It is important to also put to rest the unfettered propaganda that the ABC Rules have been based on.

Dogs have been bred for thousands of years for specific characteristics to serve human interests and dog breeding is the practice of mating selected dogs with the intent to maintain or produce specific qualities and characteristics.

Conversely, stray dogs are a result of random breeding between dogs and individual characteristics vary widely. Dogs, as a species, bite for any number of reasons – territorial aggression, overstimulation, lack of socialization, medical conditions, genes, injury, etc.

None of these issues are addressed or resolved by feeding or sterilization. If anything, they exacerbate the same as feeding creates territories, making dogs aggressive in areas where they’re fed.

Stray dog activists often invoke Hindu mythology to justify the ABC Rules and the presence of homeless dogs on the streets. While religious texts contain some positive references to dogs, they also include several negative aspects. Regardless, Article 21 guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to life, dignity and freedom of movement. These rights cannot be subordinated to any individual’s faith, ideology, hobby or saviour complex.

Millions of Indians love dogs, care for animals around them and perform the symbolic ritual of feeding the first three chapatis made in the house to a cow, a crow and a dog. However, symbolic is the key word here. They don't go around town throwing chicken scraps outside people's homes, creating filth and endangering people.  

Under Indian laws, public nuisance is defined as any act which causes any obstruction, injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or who may have occasion to use any public right. Most importantly, nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.

Therefore, it is irrelevant, and even questionable, whether feeding makes dogs easier to catch for ABC surgeries, immaterial that it allows people to indulge in rituals or hobbies and nor is it validated because someone spent their own money on it. Such acts negatively affecting the public are the definition of public nuisance.

It is pertinent to note that the animal rights lobby in India spent years opposing shelters, calling them cruel and even running a campaign called “say no to shelters.” It is dishonest that the same lobby now questions the lack of shelters. The Animal Welfare Board of India has provided funds to NGOs, to the tune of many crores of rupees, specifically listed under ‘Sheltering Grants.’  

Rejecting all excuses for lack of action on the part of the authorities and refusing to accept lack of funds and infrastructure as reasons to deny fundamental rights to citizens, the court stated, “The responsibility of the States and Union Territories, in this regard, cannot be diluted or deferred on the ground of administrative inconvenience, financial constraints or logistical challenges. These are matters that fall squarely within the domain of governance and prioritization, and cannot be permitted to operate as constitutional alibis for executive paralysis in matters directly implicating human life and public safety.”

The stray dog lobby argued before the Supreme Court that stray dogs are urban scavengers that prevent plagues, “community animals” that protect women and children, foil robberies, kill rodents, and maintain ecological balance. On the other hand, they also claimed that with enough funding and proper implementation of the ABC Rules, stray dogs would disappear from the streets. So, which is it? Are stray dogs indispensable street guardians or a problem to be sterilized out of existence? And out of curiosity, how exactly does one “save” a species by mass sterilization and lifelong homelessness, instead of responsible ownership care and breeding?

Dogs as a species enjoy being around people especially when they are owned and taken care of by an owner. However, the ABC Rules have ended up inflicting severe cruelty on unowned dogs by forcing their existence on the streets and the confused, incoherent stand of the animal rights lobby has resulted in heightened human-dog conflict.

As Milton Friedman wisely observed, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results.” On both accounts though, the ABC Rules have been an intrinsically flawed experiment, driven by animal rights ideology, bullying citizens into “co-existence” with animal attacks and diseases.

The Apex court has had the last word on the matter, “The right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack or exposure to life-threatening events such as dog bites in public areas.”

With this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has unequivocably upheld the fundamental rights of citizens and reaffirmed what the Constitution always intended – public health and safety of citizens is the primary duty of the state, and that the protection of India’s citizens can no longer be sacrificed at the altar of animal rights activism.

 

Meghna Uniyal is Director, Humane Foundation for People and Animals (HFPA had filed an IA in the suo moto in support of the Supreme Court’s orders)