Madras High Court Raps Chennai Corporation Over Dog Menace; Invites Suggestions For Solutions

"This is a total failure of the Municipal Corporation. Though, this is not a problem of Chennai alone. We want to proceed with this litigation in such a manner that compiled guidelines from proposals made by stakeholders can be put to use for the treatment of stray dogs. We invite suggestions from all lawyers on how the dogs must be treated within the framework of Rules (Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001). Suggestions can be consolidated from all quarters. Afterwards, we can pass an appropriate order regarding the same. We believe that the order of this court will have some sanctity", the court orally remarked before giving directions to GCC.

The court elaborated that it intends to make the guidelines applicable for across the State of Tamil Nadu, starting with Chennai. The guidelines so framed should comprehensively deal with their medical treatment, immunization, sterilization, relocation etc.

"In the meanwhile, we request all the lawyers to make their suggestions within the framework of the Rules as to how they can take care of stray dogs in best possible manner and at the same time, to evolve a trial for sterilization through the Municipal Corporation. The suggestions shall incorporate all conditions to be taken note of while giving effect to the Rules through the Municipal Corporation", it was recorded in the order.

Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari also issued a direction for the release of dogs remaining in IIT-Madras Enclosures to the Chennai Municipal Corporation.

"Till the next date of hearing, the Municipal Corporation, Chennai is directed to visit the Indian Institute of Technology Campus where the dogs are kept, so that they can take care of those dogs and at the same time, release them if they are fit for appropriate areas without objection of the residents of that area or elsewhere, with proper monitoring of those dogs. Appropriate treatment shall be given to the dogs, which are not in fit condition or having poor medical condition, in the veterinary hospital under the supervision of the Municipal Corporation and after they are declared to be fit after the treatment, a decision shall be taken to set them free or release again to appropriate area where they may survive without any difficulty", the court recorded in the order.

When the order was being dictated, IIT-Madras counsel indicated that there are 22 dogs remaining in enclosures.

The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu was hearing a plea against confining the stray dogs in dog enclosures at IIT- Madras Campus.

"Everyday, we can see in what situation the street dogs are surviving. Municipal Corporations has been an absolute failure in taking care of these dogs; the rules that entrusts certain responsibilities on them remain in the books. Even in the case of pet dogs, when they get old, there is a tendency for the owner to abandon them on the streets. Enclosure or otherwise, dogs are dying on the streets everyday. The question arises as to why the Municipal Corporation permitted the dogs to remain in these enclosures Municipal Corporation must take responsibility for these dogs as well as those all over in Chennai ", the court added to its observations.

The petitioner, in response, clarified that it is not for the Municipal Corporation either to take care of these dogs permanently. As per the Rules, they can act on a specific complaint and if the dogs are released from enclosure in IIT, Municipal Corporation can treat and then release them in the same locality from where they were taken.

The bench also orally remarked that whatever has happened in the IIT-M Campus with regards to the death of dogs has not been done away with yet.

"Firstly, we will take care of the remaining dogs, then we will see what happened in IIT-Madras."

The matter has been posted again for the second week of January.

Arguments Raised By NGO & Court's Response

Setting Up Enclosures

Today, the petitioner NGO reiterated its stand that the dogs should be released from the 'dog parks' in IIT-M.

The petitioner counsel recalled how the enclosures were set up for dogs in the first place. There was a petition before IIT-M for streamlining the solid waste management, including plastics inside the Campus. It was also alleged that animals inside the vast Campus were dying from consumption of such wastes. A joint committee was constituted by NGT to deal with the issue and even though stray dogs were not within the ambit of the Committee or the jurisdiction of NGT, a recommendation was made to deal with the issue, submitted the counsel.

Even beyond the scope of recommendation, permanent enclosures were set up without the approval of NGT or any law in force, contended the counsel. Under Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Act, it is the Municipal Corporation who would be the appropriate authority to deal with those dogs, added the counsel.

Animal Birth Control Rules

The petitioner then referred to various provisions of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. According to the Rule 4 and Rule 5, a monitoring committee must be constituted for planning and management of dog control programme. Simultaneously, Rule 6 talks about the obligations of local authority to establish dog pounds including dog kennels as well as maintaining dog capture, sterilisation and immunisation amenities.

Rule 7 mandates that the local authority can act on a specific complaint about dog nuisance for the receipt of which a dog control cell can be set up in association with monitoring committee established under Rule 4. It also talks about forming a dog squad for capturing dogs in a humane way, tagging the captured dogs for identification purposes, and providing them with proper veterinarian care. Thereafter, they can be sterilised/ immunised and then rereleased at the same place or locality from where they were captured and the date, time and place of their release shall be recorded, submitted the counsel. This will also ensure the ecological balance, added the counsel.

IIT Madras is situated inside a 600 Acre Reserve Forest; if a complaint is received, it should be the Municipality who will have to take action under the Rules, it was argued before the court.

Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari opined that there was no point in being critical of IIT- Madras for the purpose of protecting dogs. The bench observed that the counsel for IIT-M has already expressed its willingness to give away all the dogs to NGOs or other authorities who are keen to take them on. They are incurring expenses for doing something that they are not obligated to. However, the bench also remarked that the dogs taken from the enclosures must not be in a worse state than the current situation once their responsibility is entrusted with the Municipal Corporation.

"Many dogs have died in the Enclosures. You (petitioner) are questioning the management of dogs by IIT within the enclosures. Our question would be who is willing to take all these dogs? If Municipal Corporation is obligated under the Rules, we will ask them to take action."

The court also opined that international guidelines on the treatment of animals cannot be made applicable given the reality of India, and therefore, innovative guidelines were required.

On the previous date of hearing, i.e, on 7^th October the court had noted the contradictory stands taken by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and Animal Husbandry Department of Tamil Nadu. The Additional Government Pleader had then stated that 57 dogs had died recently as per their inspection report whereas Advocate S.R Sundaram appearing for the Animal Welfare Board submitted that IIT-Madras hasn't committed any infringements or violations as per their report.

The court was also critical about other NGOs and animal activists impleading in the current public interest litigation where the petitioner has adequately espoused for the cause of dogs concerned.

"We won't take publicity impleadments in PILs for the same cause", the court had noted then.

Before that, on 17th September, the petitioner had pointed out that 49 dogs have died till then and had referred to one of the recommendations following the Joint Committee's( comprising of members from the State Animal Husbandry Department, Animal Welfare Board and Municipal Corporation) Inspection Report, which suggested that post-mortems of dead dogs should be conducted.

Back then, IIT Madras authorities submitted before the Court that every dog on its campus is micro-chipped and three separate enclosures have been provided since some of the dogs are aggressive and impede movement within the campus and sometimes tend to threaten students.

Case Title: People For Cattle In India v. The Chairman & Another

Case No: WP/2287/2021 (PIL)