Supreme Court Has Not Allowed Euthanasia Of Stray Dogs, Animal Welfare Activist Xavier Santiago Explains Latest Judgement

Mumbai, May 25:Last week, the Supreme Court upheld its earlier judgment ordering the relocation of stray dogs from public places to shelters. While a large part of the judgment reiterates earlier observations and already established laws, the mention of terms such as euthanasia and Darwin’s theory has led to widespread misinformation, causing panic among animal feeders and the larger animal lovers’ community.

The Free Press Journal spoke to noted Mumbai-based animal welfare activist Xavier Santiago, who explained the latest judgment by the apex court and addressed concerns being raised by citizens.

Excerpts from the interview:

Q. India has always followed the Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release formula, but now the Supreme Court has asked civic bodies to relocate stray dogs to shelters. How does this change India’s animal birth control practice, or does it change anything?

A. In the previous judgments of August 22 and November 7, there was a strict protocol and annexure to compound public institutions, after which a nodal officer was to be appointed and then the dogs would be picked up. The last part of this protocol of picking up the dogs was followed, but there was no clarity about where to leave those dogs. A lot of local colleges and hospitals denied compounding their campuses due to practical reasons and, therefore, none of these protocols have actually been followed for the last seven months. Even railway stations and bus stops have not been compounded because they come with financial, administrative and logistical challenges. This also led to a halt in pickup activity and, therefore, nothing has changed on the ground.

Q. Is it practically possible to relocate every stray dog from a densely populated city like Mumbai?

A. Where is the space or land left in Mumbai or the adjoining vicinity where the animals can be shifted? You cannot pick up dogs from an affected area and dump them somewhere else and let them die because you do not have space for relocation. To build a decent shelter with infrastructure to keep around 100 dogs, you will need at least an acre of land, and the cost of procurement and management can go up to Rs 1 crore for one such shelter.

Therefore, it is neither feasible nor possible to relocate these dogs. What is possible is to follow the ABC rules. The eight functioning ABC centres in Mumbai can be expanded with better infrastructure, more skilled workers and more catching vans. If you relocate an animal, it will remain hungry and become very vicious, leading to aggressive behaviour. When you feed the dog, sterilise it and release it back into its territory, it will build trust and lead to fewer bite incidents.

Q. Euthanasia of aggressive dogs has been sensationalised after the latest order. Has the Supreme Court actually allowed the killing of aggressive dogs?

A. In paragraph ‘H’, towards the judgment’s conclusion, the court has reiterated the already established legal provision of euthanising rabid, incurably ill and demonstrably aggressive dogs after due assessment in line with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act and the ABC Rules. This clause has existed since 2001 in the ABC Rules, but it is applicable only to dogs falling under these three criteria.

Even in dealing with aggressive dogs, paragraph 16 of the ABC Rules states that the civic body has to keep a dog under assessment for 10 to 14 days and administer anti-anxiety medicines. If its behaviour does not improve, a decision can be made to euthanise it. So, basically, the Supreme Court has not allowed any authority or members of the public to kill dogs.

Q. Has the mention of euthanasia changed people’s behaviour on the ground? Will it change the way people deal with animal feeders or pet owners?

A. People are looking at it through the lens of how media houses are presenting it. The media narrative can lead to people taking the law into their own hands and killing stray dogs because they perceive them to be aggressive.

A normal dog can also show signs of aggression due to hunger or excessive heat, and people can mistake these signs for symptoms of aggression or rabies. People might search symptoms on the internet and jump to the conclusion that the dog is rabid and decide to kill it, assuming that the Supreme Court has allowed it.

They need to understand that euthanising an animal is permitted only for civic bodies and not even for NGOs or ABC centres. If people still decide to take the law into their own hands, they can be booked under Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Q. Are Mumbai and Thane civic bodies capable of relocating lakhs of stray dogs and putting them in shelters? What is the status of their veterinary departments?

A. Mumbai and Thane municipal corporations are struggling even to acquire two vans for catching dogs. That is the plight of our corporations today. They do not have staff or even a budget to vaccinate strays, and they owe huge sums of money to ABC centres.

A counsel present during the Supreme Court hearing stated that India would require 77,000 shelters to relocate 1.5 crore dogs across the country and that even at a budgetary allocation of Rs 40 per dog, an annual budget of Rs 22,000 crore would be required merely to house and feed them.

This does not include veterinary care, housekeeping, security, land acquisition and infrastructure costs, which could raise the annual expenditure to around Rs 40,000 crore. Therefore, if even Rs 2,000 crore a year is spent on the CSVR programme, India can become rabies-free.

Q. The Supreme Court’s observation about civic bodies failing to implement the ABC Rules is being seen as the silver lining in this judgment. Should this serve as a wake-up call for municipal bodies?

A. Definitely. They have to focus on ABC because it is the only practical and financially feasible solution.

I will take a stand for municipal corporations because of the financial challenges they face in implementing the ABC Rules. They cannot carry out the work without adequate budgetary allocations. Even ABC centres are not able to utilise their full potential because staff members are not being paid.

Q. The Supreme Court cited Darwin's theory, which says the stronger species survives. Are we facing a conflict between humans and dogs?

A. There is no animal-versus-human conflict. The conflicts are between one human and another.

If a person is bitten by a pack of dogs, the victim will run away and not fight another human. But if someone is feeding those dogs, the victim has someone to blame. This is a human-versus-human clash driven by ego. Animals have been made scapegoats.

Even the suo motu cognisance was taken based on media reports that sensationalised dog-bite incidents.

Q. Animal feeders are often the first to face hostility. Does this judgment increase their challenges?

A. Around 95 per cent of animal feeders are women who spend their own money to feed, vaccinate and sterilise dogs, yet continue to face challenges.

Most feeders step out after midnight to avoid altercations with neighbours or local residents who oppose animal feeding. While the ABC Rules state that designated feeding spots must be within a dog’s territory, this has often been misinterpreted as limiting feeding to one or two locations across a large area.

This worsens the situation and can increase conflicts involving animals. In our society, we implemented a rule requesting residents not to use certain spots at designated times and leave them available for feeding. It resolved all issues.

Q. There is a mixed reaction from the animal welfare community after the judgment. What is the need of the hour for animal welfare organisations and activists?

A. Animal lovers, rather than fighting animal haters or civic bodies, need to come together, understand the ABC Rules and the laws protecting animals and themselves, and work accordingly.

Feeders should take the initiative to ensure that dogs are vaccinated and sterilised regularly and maintain health records. They can work constructively with housing society committees and civic bodies by offering assistance.

Also Watch:

In the end, even those opposed to stray dogs want animal feeders to continue feeding them because they want their loved ones to avoid dog bites. We can sit together and work towards preventing future conflicts.

This is the right time for everyone to come together positively, approach the appropriate authorities, seek support and offer assistance to build a better community and a peaceful, coexisting environment.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/