The Supreme Court on Friday made strict observations on submissions advanced on behalf of actor Sharmila Tagore in matters relating to stray dogs, stating that emotional arguments cannot override ground realities and that public safety, particularly in hospitals, must take precedence.
The court is hearing a series of matters concerning the growing population of stray dogs across the country, incidents of dog attacks, and issues of public safety. During the proceedings on January 9, the court examined suggestions placed before it by Sharmila Tagore in connection with the handling of stray dogs.
Appearing on her behalf, counsel submitted that all dogs should not be viewed in the same manner and that their behaviour ought to be assessed before any strict action is taken. It was argued that not all dogs present in public spaces are dangerous and that some have been residing in the same locations for years without posing harm to people.
Referring to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Delhi, counsel stated that a dog had been living on the campus for several years and was friendly in nature. It was further submitted that before considering removal or euthanasia, an expert committee should be constituted to assess which dogs are aggressive and which are not.
The proposal placed before the court was that any determination of a dog being dangerous should be preceded by a scientific and practical evaluation of its behaviour by a committee comprising animal behaviour experts.
Responding to these submissions, the Supreme Court raised questions on the AIIMS example and made a pointed observation, asking whether such a dog was also being taken into operation theatres. The court stated that the risk of infection in hospitals is extremely serious and that the presence of stray animals in such sensitive spaces could create a grave situation.
The court observed that dogs living on the streets naturally carry parasites and pose risks of infection, and that their presence within hospital premises cannot be treated as acceptable. Addressing Sharmila Tagore, the court remarked on the need to recognise the practical realities being highlighted.
The Supreme Court further stated that the issue of stray dogs is not limited to animal welfare concerns alone, but directly affects public safety, including the safety of children, elderly persons, and patients. The court noted that incidents of dog bites by free-roaming dogs continue to be reported, and that merely asserting that some dogs are friendly does not address the broader problem.
Emphasising hospitals in particular, the court observed that hygiene and infection control are of paramount importance in such institutions. Referring to facilities such as AIIMS, the court noted the presence of critically ill patients, operation theatres, and intensive care units, and stated that the presence of stray animals in such environments cannot be treated as normal.
