Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by Conference for Human Rights seeking direction to the respondents to perform duties as envisaged under Sections 9, 11 of the ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Rules 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, a division bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ., and Jasmeet Singh, J., directed the respondents to ensure that they continue with their efforts and drive for sterilization and immunization of stray dogs, as the same is an important public function and is required to be performed in all its earnestness.
The petition was filed seeking a direction to carry out regular “Sterilization and immunization’/vaccination Programmes in terms of Rule 3 (3), Rule 5 (a) and Rule 6 (2) Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 for the Stray dogs at regular intervals of time, (using humane methods as prescribed under clause 4 of Rule 7), to contain their population and to prevent them from being afflicted by Rabies. It further seeks to disclose all data / material for the assessment done of the progress made regarding implementation of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, in terms of Clause (4) of Rule 6, which is a mandatory clause.
Thus, the petitioner’s grievance is that the rules made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 i.e. the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001 have not been complied with. As per the said rules, the respondents are duty-bound to take up regular sterilization and immunization programs for stray dogs, in order to curtail the growing population of stray dogs. Due to the non-performance of statutory duties, there is a rapid increase in the stray dog population in the city of Delhi resulting in an increase in “dog bites cases”.
Counsel for petitioner contended that the Respondents are not performing their duties and functions as prescribed under the law in so far as they are not conducting any sterilization programmes to contain the canine population of the city which is growing at a frightening rate, even though crores of rupees are being allocated to them for this purpose, by the Central Government.
On perusal of the Status Report filed by the respondent, the Court stands satisfied that respondent no. 2 and 3 are regularly conducting the sterilization and immunization of stray dogs and are performing their statutory duties.
Thus, the Court directed the respondents to ensure that they continue with their efforts and drive for sterilization and immunization of stray dogs, as the same is an important public function and is required to be performed in all its earnestness.
[Conference for Human Rights v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5016, decided on 18-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. N. Sharma, Secretary General of Conference of HRs for the Petitioner;
Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Ms.Divyanshi Anand, and Advocate for the Respondent No.1 / UOI;
Mr. Divyam Nandrajog & Mr.Mayank Kamra, Advocates for the respondent No.2/ GNCTD;
Ms. Tanu Priya Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent No.3/ MCD.
