New Delhi, November 16
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the Bombay High Court’s observation that those feeding them must adopt or put them up in dog shelter homes and bear the necessary expenses.
Can’t force those feeding dogs to adopt them: Supreme Court
“You cannot insist that the people who want to feed them must adopt them,” a Bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, directing the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to take steps for the general public to feed stray dogs at appropriate locations, demarcated and identified by them.
Animal board’s response sought
Nagpur MC amp; Animal Welfare Board of India told to file their response in the case; no coercive steps in pursuance of HC order till next hearing, says SC
The Bench said till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps should be taken in pursuance of the October 20 order of the high court, which had imposed a penalty of Rs 200 for every breach. The high court had also said no resident of Nagpur and areas surrounding it should feed or make any attempt to feed stray dogs in public places, gardens, etc.
While hearing petitions challenging the high court order, it asked the public to ensure no nuisance was caused by feeding stray dogs.
The top court asked the municipal corporation and Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) to file their responses as also take stand on the directions given in the October 20 order. The High Court had said, “If these so-called friends of stray dogs are really interested in protection and welfare of the stray dogs, they must adopt the stray dogs, take home the stray dogs or at least put them up in some good dog shelter homes and bear all the expenses for their registration with municipal authorities and towards their maintenance, health and vaccination.”
Observing that it was not an expert body on stray dogs, the Bench said it wanted to have the views of the municipal corporation and the Animal Welfare Board of India. One of the advocates appearing in the matter said the civic body and AWBI could work together and offer a workable solution.
“In the meantime, we have to stay certain parts of the order,” the Bench orally observed, adding, “hellip;we are not staying the order but do not take coercive steps.”
Clarifying that the proceeding before the high court would continue, it posted the matter for hearing in February next year.
