Help from residents and officials
Many people are happy with the Supreme Court’s decision that stray dogs must stay in shelters permanently and not be let back into their territory.
Atul Goyal, president of the United Resident Joint Action (URJA), a group that brings together RWAs in Delhi, praised the move, saying it would help stop the rising number of dog bites. He also said that the same thing should happen to wayward cows.
Iqbal Singh, the mayor of Delhi, said he fully supported the order and understood the challenges that citizens were having. He said that the city will “try our best to implement this order in the next 6 weeks” by building temporary and permanent shelters. After meeting with officials, an action plan would be made.
Rekha Gupta, the Chief Minister of Delhi, also promised that her government would follow the court’s directions and put in place a “planned and systematic” program to deal with the “huge” problem of stray dogs.
Animal welfare groups are quite upset.
On the other hand, people who support animal rights have raised fundamental questions about the court’s order’s morality and practicality.
PETA India said the order was “impractical, illogical, and against the law.” Shaurya Agrawal, an advocacy associate, said that taking away about a million canines from Delhi by force would bring “chaos and suffering” and is “inhumane.” He said that just half of the city’s stray dogs had been spayed or neutered, which makes it almost impossible to shelter all of them.
Maneka Gandhi, a former Union minister and animal rights campaigner, agreed with these worries, calling the decree “unworkable” and “financially unviable.” She thought that the city couldn’t afford the ₹15,000 crore it would take to build the infrastructure needed to house all the dogs. She also said that the decision was “very strange” because it was made by someone who was angry.
The Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organizations (FIAPO) said the order was “shocking” because it went against “global public health guidance, India’s own laws, and humane, evidence-based practice.”
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has stuck to its guns and said that their decision is in the “larger public interest.” The court has turned down all requests for intervention and has made it clear that anyone who tries to stop the roundup will be held in contempt.