views
A division bench comprising Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Jasmeet Singh recently directed the Delhi government and Municipal Corporation of Delhi to ensure that they continue with their efforts for sterilisation and immunisation of stray dogs.
The court was dealing with a plea filed by Conference for Human Rights seeking direction to the respondents to perform duties as envisaged under Sections 9, 11 of the ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Rules 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.
The plea had sought direction to carry out regular sterilisation and immunisation/vaccination programmes in terms of Rule 3 (3), Rule 5 (a) and Rule 6 (2) Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 for the Stray dogs at regular intervals of time, (using humane methods as prescribed under clause 4 of Rule 7), to contain their population and prevent them from being afflicted by rabies.
It further sought directions to disclose all data for the assessment of the progress made regarding implementation of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, in terms of Clause (4) of Rule 6, which is a mandatory clause.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are not performing their duties and functions as prescribed under the law as they are not conducting any “sterilisation programme” to contain the canine population of the city which is growing at a frightening rate. “Though crores of rupees are being allocated to them for this purpose by the Central Government”, the counsel contended.
However, on perusal of the status report filed by respondents, the court said they are satisfied that the Delhi government and Municipal Corporation of Delhi are regularly conducting the sterilisation and immunisation of stray dogs and “are performing their statutory duties”.
They are directed to continue with their efforts and drive for sterilisation and immunisation of stray dogs, as it is an “important public function and is required to be performed in all its earnestness”, the court said in its order on August 18.
Comments
0 comment