The Delhi High Court was today faced with a peculiar question as it wondered what is to be done with stray dogs at its premises and how to deal with them, with the rules saying the canines have to be relocated at the same place after sterilisation and immunisation.
A bench comprising Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath reserved its order on a plea challenging the order of a single judge asking NDMC to remove stray dogs from the premises of the Delhi Golf Club within a month and relocate them elsewhere.
Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw in his November 4 order had said after the dogs were sterilised, the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) cannot insist on releasing them back in the private property of the club where they were picked up from.
The Animal Welfare Board of India, which has challenged the November 4 order, has said under the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, the canines cannot be relocated in other areas.
"Tell us if around 25 stray dogs entered the High Court premises, which is a public place, how can they be dealt with. Under the said rules, they have to be relocated in the same locality after sterilisation or immunisation. If animals have their rights, so do humans," the bench said.
One of the lawyers for the Board replied that the High Court had already faced a similar situation earlier when several dogs used to stay near the typing pool and the civic body was called to take the animals away.
"They were released after sterilisation in the same area but after some time their population fell and now around 5-6 dogs can be spotted in the area with one even staying near a bank inside the court premises," the lawyer said.
The Board also told the court that the Supreme Court, hearing a similar matter recently, had said a "balance between compassion for animals and human lives" has to be struck.
He said the apex court had allowed the elimination of only "irretrievably ill or mortally wounded" stray dogs in a "humane manner" and asked all states and union territories to go by the central rules on the issue.
(Reopens LGD15)
The bench further said the Act and rules largely dealt with the public place and not private premises.
The Board, however, said the Act and the Rules only made a distinction between stray and pet dogs and not public and private premises.
The court, during the hearing, also asked the Board whether there exists any rehabilitation center for stray dogs or any homes where they can be put into.
To this, the Board said it cannot be done as the problem of stray dogs is huge and no organisation can maintain such homes.
The bench then said it will consider all the aspects and then pass an order.
The single judge had directed the NDMC to remove the stray dogs within a month from Delhi Golf Club premises and directed that the dogs so removed shall not be released in the same premises or locality but elsewhere.
The order had come on a plea by the club claiming that stray dogs had entered its premises in search of food and were now permanently living there.
It had told the court that the dogs were attacking, killing and eating the peacocks, peahens and little chicks as well as the "sambhars and deers" present in the club premises, besides occasionally attacking its members and children.
The club in its petition had said the dogs should be removed from its premises "to ensure the safety of human beings, peacocks, peahen and their chicks".
