The Supreme Court of India just made a decision about how to deal with stray dogs, and it has generated a national debate. Some people think it would be good for animals and harmful for people. The new law specifies that you have to take stray dogs back to where you found them after they have been spayed or neutered and given their shots.
The top court made it plain that only canines that are acting aggressively or have rabies will be kept in jail. The court also instructed local governments to set up specific feeding locations in every ward to cope with difficulties in the community. Many people are not sure about this.
People who reside in Delhi’s Saket area and welfare groups are quite against the decision, stating that it doesn’t take into account the genuine safety issues on the ground. “Who will make the call on whether a dog is aggressive? A homeowner inquired, “Who will decide if it will attack?” because a lot of individuals have said that dogs bite youngsters and old people.
The United residents of Delhi (URD), a coalition of RWAs, argued that the order to set up designated feeding locations was “impractical and hard to carry out” since residents would strongly object to big groups of dogs gathering near their homes. Because the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had not executed court decisions in the past, they did not believe that the current verdict would be carried out.
Animal rights groups and dog lovers around the country, on the other hand, have called the Supreme Court’s recent ruling “balanced” and “scientific.” Bollywood actor and honorary director of PETA India John Abraham applauded the decision, saying it makes it possible for “peaceful coexistence” and saves strays from being “condemned to death” because there aren’t enough places for them to reside. Animal rights groups concurred with the RWA’s worries and argued that the lack of a clear definition of “aggressive” dogs may be used wrongly.
The Supreme Court, which made the case applicable to all of India, noted that the new ruling was a revision to an earlier, stricter verdict that was judged to be “too harsh” and hard to follow. The court has urged all states and union territories to help write a national policy.