In the recent weeks there have been news reports that former corporator M Pari has filed a case against the BBMP in the Lokayukta court. The complaint seeks an inquiry into the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme, which is being carried out from 2001. And that BBMP commissioner Mr. Siddaiah has been asked to implement recommendations of the report submitted by Dr MK Sudarshan in May 2007.
- The KIMS reports’ ‘analysis’ by its authors clearly seems motivated since the ‘data’ in the report and from BBMP clearly shows that on almost any parameter of effectiveness for instance bites/1000 population, bites/sq km of urban area, sterilization effectiveness/ 1000 population etc the ABC program in Bangalore has worked really well indeed. The Voice of Stray Dogs analysis of the KIMS data and ABC effectiveness was earlier presented here.
- The KIMS reports fairly loose and blase ‘recommendations’ that both the corporator and Stray Dog Free Bangalore keeps wanting to have in place can be seen in detail here
Earlier too the Lokayukta has been petitioned on the ABC dog rules and it has went beyond the brief of corruption to address the implementation of ABC Dog Rules in Karnataka See Judgement: Lokayukta Writ Petition against ABC Programs of 2006
The Karnatka High Court has twice upheld Animal Birth Control as a means to controlling stray dog population within the city of Bangalore, in the year 2002, and then in the year 2006. The analysis of the Lokayukta writs of 2006 is brought to you by Anjali Sharma
REGARDING THE JUDGMENT THAT CAME TO BE PASSED IN 3 WRIT PETITIONS, DISPOSED OFF VIDE A COMMON ORDER, IN THE YEAR 2006 :
The office of the Karnataka Lokayukta was established under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Preamble to which reads as follows :
“An Act to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for making enquiries into administrative action relatable to matters specified in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, taken by or on behalf of the Government of Karnataka or certain public authorities in the State of Karnataka (including any omission or commissions in connection with or arising out of such action) in certain cases and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto.
……..”
It is trite that courts of law are empowered to assess, and then declare whether or not any Rules framed under a parent enactment, are or are not ultra vires the said enactment. In the year 2002, the Karnataka Lokayukta however,
(i) Deemed it appropriate, and within the scope of his functions and powers, to declare the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, framed under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, utra vires the said Act !
(ii) He also cancelled a resolution dated 9th August, 2002, made / passed by the Municipal Corporation on the basis of the ABC (Dogs) Rules ; and
(iii) Additionally, he made excessive remarks, without notice, against the NGOs assisting the Corporation with the animal birth control programme within the city of Bangalore.
It is pertinent that vide the judgment of the Karnataka High Court passed in the year 2006 :
(a) The excessive remarks made by the Karnataka Lokayukta, without notice to those that the remarks were addressed against, i.e. the NGOs assisting the Municipal Corporation with the animal birth control programme within the city of Bangalore, were expunged by the Karnataka High Court ; and
(b) The action of the Lokayukta vide which he had purported to declare the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, utra vires the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, was disregarded, as was his cancellation of resolution dated 9th August, 2002, made / passed by the Municipal Corporation on the basis of the ABC (Dogs) Rules ; and
(c) Animal birth control, being adopted by the Municipal Corporation for controlling stray dog population within Bangalore, was approved and upheld by the Court (despite Stray Dog Free Bangalore’s petition seeking ‘destruction of stray and ownerless dogs within Bangalore city’), after specifically noticing the earlier order passed by a Division Bench of the said Court, while disposing off Writ Petition Numbers 37359/2001, titled ‘Stray Dog Free Bangalore & (27) Others Vs State of Karnataka and (2) Others’, and 1970/2001, titled ‘Subhashini K. Reddy Vs Commissioner BMP & (2) Others’
The orders passed by the Court came to be passed in the following writ petitions, by and against the following parties that had been filed before the Karnataka High Court :
[These petitions were disposed off together, by a common order passed on 14th December, 2006, by a learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court.]
WRIT PETITION NO. 20432 / 2003
BETWEEN
COMPASSION UNLIMITED PLUS ACTION (CUPA) & ORS.
AND
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
“THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO HOLD THE FOLLOWING REMARKS OF THE RESPONDENT IN HIS RECOMMENDATORY REPORT DT. 6-3-2003 VIDE ANN. A, AS UNNECESSARY AND UNCALLED FOR”
(As excerpted in the common order disposing off the petitions that was passed by the Hon’ble Court.)
WRIT PETITION NO. 26996 / 2003
BETWEEN
COMPASSION UNLIMITED PLUS ACTION (CUPA) & ORS.
AND
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA & ORS.
“THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE R1 EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY IN SEEKING TO ADJUDGE THE ANIMAL BIRTH CONTROL (DOGS) RULES, 2001 AS ULTRA VIRES THE PREVENTION OF CRUELY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960.”
(As excerpted in the common order disposing off the petitions that was passed by the Hon’ble Court.)
WRIT PETITION NO. 31268 / 2003
BETWEEN
STRAY DOG FREE BANGALORE
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
“THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING FOR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS DIRECTING THEM:
(1) TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HON’BLE LOKAYUKTA IN HIS ORDERS DT. 6.3.2003 VIDE ANNEX.L. (2) TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATORY FUNCTION (DUTY) OF DESTRUCTION OF STRAY AND OWNERLESS DOGS IN BANGALORE CITY, AS REQUIRED OF IT BY SUB-SECTION (12) OF SECTION 58, OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1976, AS PER ANNEX.L.”
(As excerpted in the common order disposing off the petitions that was passed by the Hon’ble Court.)
The unwarranted remarks made by the office of the Lokayukta, without notice to those they were made against, i.e. the NGOs assisting the Municipal Corporation with the animal birth control programme, and that came to be expunged by the Karnataka High Court, were as follows :
PAGE 8, LINES 9 AND 10 :
“Indeed, such unwarranted threatening letters written by Ministers and officers of the Central Government have become lame excuses for Commissioners, such as the Commissioner for Bangalore Municipal Corporation, not only to avoid their statutory obligations of destroying the stray and ownerless dogs in the cities or towns covered under their respective Municipal Acts, but also for dolling out public money to their favorite animals organizations, in the guise of implementing Animal Birth Control Rules of the Central Government, which are ultra virus the provisions of Animals Act.”
PAGE 13 LINES 6 & 7
“However, as such evidentiary material placed before me, since demonstrate as to why the Municipal Acts all over the Country must have made the provision in all of them for destruction of stray dogs in the concerned cities or towns and also as to why the Animals Act by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of that Act must have declared that the provisions of Animals Act relating to cruelty to Animals do not apply to the destruction of stray and ownerless dogs, I am duty bound to refer to such matrial, so that the so called Stray dogs lovers in our country, most of whom are fortunate enough to move in their limousines, may not try to create the wrong impression on the minds of gullible poor people of our Country that no harm could come to humans living and moving in Bangalore by its stray and ownerless dogs, as they have sought to do with me.”
PAGE 49 LINES 5 TO 13 OF PARAGRAPH (b)
“ (b) When Dr. S. Krishnamurthy, in his write up adverted to earlier has stated that he has given a write up to be put on record for posterity, so that if no action is taken now, the future generation should know who are the people responsible for very high incidence of rabies in India, whose only beneficiaries are perhaps Animal activists and MNC Rabies Vaccine Manufacturing Companies, it carries conviction and appears to be the whole truth. As told by him, the animal activists, who are preferring the killing of human beings of our Country than of the killing of the stray and ownerless dogs, one cannot avoid the impression that they must be working for the benefit of MNC Rabies Vaccine Manufacturing Companies, in as much as, they are doing so with utter regard to the fact that annually 30,000 people of our country are dying on account of rabies and 10,00,000 people are undergoing Post Exposure Treatment annually for fear of having been bitten by rabies infected dogs.”
PAGE 49 PARA 7 :
“7. Further, that the people of our country, who are pleading for saving stray and ownerless dogs in our country, must have been working for MNC Rabies Vaccine Manufacturing Companies, as pointed out by Dr. S. Krishnamurthy, in his write up, adverted to earlier, gains credibility when they are discarding the advise of even Mr. F.X. Meslin, Chief of the Geneva based Rabies Division of WHO, adverted to earlier, who has made it clear that even an International Animal Welfare Organisation like world Society for Protection of Animals does not oppose shooting or use of euthanasia for eliminating stray dogs and he himself does not believe that the Animal Birth Control Programme in this Country has stabilised the dog population in India.”
ORDER VI
PLEADINGS GENERALLY
…………….
16. Striking out pleadings.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading-
(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or
(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or
(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
THE KARNATKA HIGH COURT HAS THEREFORE, TWICE UPHELD ANIMAL BIRTH CONTROL AS A MEANS TO CONTROLLING STRAY DOG POPULATION WITHIN THE CITY OF BANGALORE.
