Given the ‘information’ flying thick and fast about BBMP’s stand on aggressive dogs it is timely to see this communique from the Chairman of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) to BBMP and all NGOs working to support the ABC program in Bangalore.
- It has been previously reported that BBMP has attempted to make a case of putting down a supposedly ‘aggressive’ dog abandoned at one of its NGO’s facilities.
- The Times of India has alleged in a newspaper report on 19 Oct 2012 that the affidavit submitted by BBMP yesterday at the Karnataka High Court says: “Dogs in the habit of snapping at children, people, habitual biters, ferocious and with unpredictable temperament and behavior, will be isolated and observed for a period of 10 days during which they are handled by animal welfare organizations, animal activists and behavioral therapists. If there is no change in behavior, it will be evaluated by a government veterinarian and the Animal Welfare Board and put down in a humane way by use of sodium pentothal injection or any other method prescribed by Animal Welfare Board of India.”
- Members of AWO/NGO’s spoke off the record with ‘The Voice of Stray Dogs’ about a meeting in this week in which the Jt Director of Animal Husbandry, Dr Piran, allegedly asked the NGOs participating in the ABC program to euthanize ‘aggressive’ dogs.
In the letter dated 18 Oct 2012 and marked to Dr. Parviz Piran, Jt. Director, Animal Husbandry, BBMP, AWBI’s legal counsel Ms Brinda Nandkumar & Office bearers of Bangalore AWOs participating in the ABC program in Bangalore (including CUPA, Sarvodaya, Vet for Animals, Karuna, VSRD, ARF), the Animal Welfare Board of India stated:
“As you are aware, the issue of ‘nuisance’ dogs, which will include allegedly ‘ferocious’ dogs, is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of ‘AWBI Vs PEST &Anr’, SLP (Civil) No. 691/2009, and 4 other related petitions, including a petition filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Union of India. The Supreme Court had, vide its order passed on 23rd January, 2009, stayed operation of the Bombay High Court order allowing the Commissioner, BMC, to order the culling of nuisance dogs. One of the main arguments which weighed with the Supreme Court was that the term ‘nuisance dogs’ is not defined in either the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, or The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. It was also pointed out to the Court that the procedure for dealing with dog nuisance or dog bites is also provided in Rule 7 “Kindly note that the term ‘ferocious dog’ is not defined either; and consenting to ferocious dogs being euthanized will not only be contrary to the law as it currently is, and to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, but may also lend itself to misuse because any and every dog may then be termed ferocious, and sought to be put down. Therefore no such consent, which will be contrary to law, and to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order be given by the parties before the Court.”of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules.
“It will also interest you to know that through an order passed yesterday by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the matter titled ‘COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs GNCTD &Anr’, W.P. (Civil) No. 6459 of 2012, the Delhi High Court, while modifying its earlier order passed on 10th October, 2012, has also affirmed that only if there is a complaint for dog bite/dog nuisance, it can be dealt with in accordance with The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. Twenty applicants, including The Animal Welfare Board of India, had challenged the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s order ; and after a detailed hearing involving several lawyers, the Court was persuaded to modify its earlier order.
“Kindly note that the term ‘ferocious dog’ is not defined either; and consenting to ferocious dogs being euthanized will not only be contrary to the law as it currently is, and to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, but may also lend itself to misuse because any and every dog may then be termed ferocious, and sought to be put down. Therefore no such consent, which will be contrary to law, and to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order be given by the parties before the Court.”