The Supreme Court reiterated its serious stance on remarks made in the suo motu stray dogs case, dismissing claims of sarcasm. Advocate Prashant Bhushan raised concerns about misinterpretation leading to attacks on dog feeders due to court comments. The Court clarified that the remarks were not made sarcastically but with gravity, emphasizing their significance.
During the hearing on managing stray dogs, Bhushan pointed out disparities in implementing Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules nationwide. He highlighted the need for transparency and accountability in sterilization programs to address aggression effectively. Bhushan proposed a citizen reporting mechanism for unsterilized stray dogs to enhance the system’s efficiency.
Justice Mehta humorously suggested dogs carrying sterilization certificates, prompting Bhushan to caution against the potential impact of even light-hearted court remarks. The Court acknowledged the live broadcast of proceedings and stressed the importance of circumspection. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing Maneka Gandhi, emphasized the necessity of robust rabies and birth control initiatives, citing shortcomings in state-level implementation.
Ramachandran faced questions about Gandhi’s role in securing funds for these programs, highlighting the need for clarity on her contributions. The Court previously deliberated on conflicts between Animal Birth Control Rules and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions, focusing on the release of sterilized dogs versus local authorities’ discretion in handling public nuisance. The next hearing on the matter is scheduled for January 28.
