Posted On 13/04/2012 By In Law for Animals With 995 Views

SCs gift to Bangalore’s Stray Dogs: Rejects BBMPs SLP impleadment for euthanasia

New Delhi, 13 March 2012: BBMP intervention application in the stray dog matters Supreme Court S.L.P. (Civil) No. 691 of 2009, rejected

In January, 2009, the Animal Welfare Board of India, and 4 other parties has filed Special Leave Petitions against the Bombay High Court order passed in December, 2008, allowing the Municipal Commissioner to order the killing of “nuisance” dogs, even though the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, enacted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, do not provide for any such “category” to be euthanized. (As per Central law, only incurably ill and mortally wounded dogs can be euthanized.) BBMP had impleaded in the Supreme Court ostensibly to support AWBI but with a clear mandate to have the powers of a culling dogs.

On 23rd January, 2009, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the order passed by the Bombay High Court. All 5 matters have been pending hearing till now, and are slated to be listed before the Court on 17th April, 2012 for consideration.


In August, 2011, the BBMP had filed an intervention application in the AWBI petition before the Supreme Court, i.e. S.L.P. (Civil) No. 691 of 2009, which we had posted in this space, earlier as well. You can see it here.

Some of BBMP’s contentions set out in its application were as follows :

  • That releasing strays back on the streets either by the civic bodies or the NGOs, is an act of cruelty. (Para 6)
  • That the ABC Rules 2001 framed by the Ministry are unconstitutional and illegal and hence liable to be struck down. (Para 6)
  • That the ABC Rules make no provisions to protect citizens from stray dogs that are dangerous, ferocious or a nuisance, and the consequent pain, suffering permanent disabilities and even death caused by such stray dogs who are dangerous, rabid or a nuisance. As a result, while claims are being made that the ABC scheme is being implemented, citizens on a daily basis are exposed to the menace and danger posed to them by dangerous, rabid or a nuisance dogs and are condemned to undergo the consequent pain, suffering, permanent disabilities and even death as also the onerous costs of medical treatment and vaccines/medicines incurred buy them on account of the same. The Corporation’s expenditure on anti-rabies vaccine in Karnataka has gone up and Anti-rabies Serum has gone up substantially in the last three years.” (Para 15)
  • That BBMP should be allowed to displace dogs, and will exercise the power to remove stray dogs from public places “judiciously”. (Para 21)
  • That Animal Welfare Organization must continue to shelter as many homeless animals as feasible, for which they are receiving public funds. So far more than 11.00 crore have been paid to animal welfare NGOs in Bangalore during the last ten years.”

On 12th December, 2011, the BBMP’s application for intervention in the AWBI petition, was listed before the Supreme Court for consideration. Technical defects / objections were noticed in the same, and the Court granted 4 weeks time to them, to rectify the defects. It was also clearly noted in the order that if the same was not done, the application would stand rejected. You can see the Supreme Court Order rejecting the BBMP application in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 691 of 2009 here.

We learn that BBMP could not / did not rectify the defects in their application.

The Supreme Court registry has therefore rejected their application, and it is NOT POSTED for consideration before the Supreme Court on 17th April, 2012, when the AWBI’s petition, and 4 other petitions, seeking that the Bombay High Court order allowing the Municipal Commissioner to order the killing of “nuisance” dogs, be set aside, are listed before the Supreme Court.


Tags : , , ,