Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a PIL was filed by the petitioner against the tragic loss experienced by him in the untimely demise of his cherished adopted pet dog to the Canine Distemper Virus (‘CD Virus’), Sanjeev Narula, J.*, opined that it was not to the Court’s jurisdiction to issue directions for a specific vaccination to be made available free of cost to users and the direction for 24×7 animal ambulance service, para-vets on bikes, changes in school curriculums, creation of a dedicated animal welfare fund, would also entail considerations such as allocation of budgets, infrastructure, personnel and other resources, among other multifaceted issues. The Court also opined that these considerations were typically encompassed in government policy making. Thus, the Court disposed of the writ petition.
Background
The petitioner submitted that the attending veterinarian failed to timely diagnose the affliction of the deadly CD virus. It was further submitted that Delhi lacked dedicated animal cremation facilities compelling him to cremate his pet in a crematorium at Chhatarpur, New Delhi, managed by PAWS Pet Animal Welfare Society (Regd.) on payment of Rs. 3000. The petitioner urged that absence of essential vaccines like Canine DHPPi Vaccine (Distemper Combined 9-in-1 Vaccine) (‘Canine DHPPi Vaccine’) exhibited a glaring deficit in modern infrastructure for animal treatment in Delhi, which underscores urgent need for the Court’s intervention.
The petitioner highlighted the menace posed by the CD virus and Parvovirus, a contagious viral infection like CD virus. Despite awareness of the pressing situation, the Government had not ensured ready availability of Canine DHPPi Vaccine, which was effective against both viruses, in its veterinary hospitals. The virus affected different systems of the body while damaging the brain and immunity of the animals and exhibited a high mortality rate. The petitioner submitted that if the Canine DHPPi Vaccine was administered within six weeks of birth, this vaccine significantly reduced the risk of dogs, cats, and other wild animals from contracting CD virus, Parvovirus, and several other diseases. Thus, the petitioner appeals to this Court to mandate the respondents to maintain a consistent supply of this indispensable vaccine, alongside other crucial medications, to thwart the threat from CD virus, Parvovirus, and other diseases. The petitioner further submitted that the respondents had exhibited a lack of responsibility, showing inertia in deploying resources and establishing a basic healthcare system tailored for animals.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the Government of Delhi was not only addressing immediate healthcare requirements of the animals but was also investing in the training and skill development of veterinary personnel through construction of a veterinary college. The Court recognized and appreciated petitioner’s concerns and thus opined that it was imperative to emphasize that decisions surrounding allocation of Government funds for animal welfare services and prioritizing availability of vaccines for specific disease should be left to the domain of experts who were adept in gauging the complexities of these issues.
The Court opined that the respondents’ commitment to addressing concerns on adequate vaccinations was visible by the on-going vaccination programmes, namely Anti-Rabies Vaccine, Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine, Hemorrhagic Septicaemia Disease Vaccine, and DHPPIL vaccine, by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) and Government of Delhi. The Court observed that the Government of Delhi was seized of the threat posed by the CD virus and Parvovirus and was actively vaccinating animals for the same.
The Court further opined that it was not to the Court’s jurisdiction to issue directions for a specific vaccination to be made available free of cost to users and the direction for 24×7 animal ambulance service, para-vets on bikes, changes in school curriculums, creation of a dedicated animal welfare fund, would also entail considerations such as allocation of budgets, infrastructure, personnel and other resources, among other multifaceted issues. These considerations were typically encompassed in government policy making.
The Court opined that asserting priority over one issue invariably means de-prioritizing another, a decision fraught with its complexities and intricacies, thus, such decisions would involve consultations with experts and even the public, to deliberate appropriate action.
Thus, the Court disposed of the writ petition.
[Rahul Mohod v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5492, decided on 06-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: C.D. Goswami, Advocate with Petitioner (in-Person)
For the Respondents: Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel (Civil), GNCTD; Arun Panwar, Pradyuman Rao, Patesh Raghav, Mahak Rankawat, Utkarsh Singh, Advocates; Beenashaw N. Soni, Standing Counsel with Mansi Jain, Advocate.
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjeev Narula
