Telangana HC Expressed Anguish Over Increasing Dog-Man Conflict Incidents

The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Jagannagari Sreenivas Rao, which is hearing a suo motu PIL on the issue of stray dogs biting people, on Friday expressed anguish over the government inaction in the matter.

Responding to the government arguments that the street dogs could not be captured or culled, the court pointed out that Rule 11 of the animal birth control (ABC) rules dealt with capturing or sterilisation or immunisation and release of stray dogs. It said the street dogs could be captured for general purposes, namely to control the excess population, and Rule 11(19), which provided to release the dog in the same area after immunisation, did not apply if the dog was captured for the purposes of rehabilitation.

The court observed that it was a very sad state of affairs and unfortunate that a society had not been created where people, especially infants, children and the elderly, are safe when on the roads and at home.

The reaction came from the court following the incident of an 82-year-old woman being bitten to death by stray dogs, which then ate some of her body parts at Battuvanithallu in Mustabad mandal of Rajanna Sircilla district, and the case of stray dogs attacking 16 people, including six children, in Rajiv Colony at Balanagar here.

The Chief Justice bench observed that these incidents were shocking and asked the government to come out with solutions, instead of defending itself in court.

The court said that the issue of dog bites should be dealt with in a two-fold manner —taking steps as provisions of animal birth control (ABC) rules and preventing dog-human conflicts.

When Advocate-General A. Sudharshan Reddy said that the government’s hands were tied due to the Supreme Court’s rulings over the relocation of stray dogs and other matters, the court observed that the Supreme Court would not accept horrible incidents of stray dogs eating body parts.

When the Advocate-General submitted that steps had been taken as per the rules to control stray dogs, the bench responded saying that there was no outcome and incidents of dog-human conflict were increasing by the day. The bench observed that it was not appropriate to make arguments and defend the government in the issues of public interest, where the people are suffering.

The AG also submitted that the incidents mostly occurred in the locations where the migrated people were located.

“We have to do something constructive,” the court observed and said that in such matters there should be suggestions and a solution, not arguments.

After a long discussion over the issue, the High Court was not happy with the government’s measures and directed the state and the Central governments to come up with more tangible steps to thwart attacks by stray dogs.

Further, the court directed the GHMC to file an affidavit stating compliance with the provisions of the ABC rules. The court also asked whether the ABC centres had a helpline to deal with cases regarding dog bites.

The court also directed GHMC to submit an affidavit regarding the status of implementation of its statutory obligations under the ABC rules.