Stray dog debate: NGO bats for sterilisation, says killing ‘barbaric’Killing of stray dogs is barbaric and unconstitutional and does not help in controlling their population, but sterilisation can be a better tool. This is what an NGO, In Defence of Animals, has given in its written submission before the Bombay High Court where hearing on the matter is on.
According to the NGO, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had adopted the strategy to destroy dogs in the past and failed. From 1939 to 1999, though the municipal body did away with 25 lakh dogs, it failed to control the stray dog population, the petitioner against killing of stray dogs states. The NGO states that throughout the world, countries that opt for sterilisation have been successful in controlling dog population. “The same sentiment finds an echo in the submission made by the central government and affirmed by the WHO which contends that sterilisation is the only remedy to curb population of dogs,” the NGO states. Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, who appeared for NGO Welfare of Stray Dogs (which is carrying out a sterilisation drive), submitted that although the population of the dogs really never went down, death due to rabies had been cut down by one-third. He argued that it was not right to say the city was at the mercy of rabid dogs. The state government had earlier supported the BMC regarding the validity of the BMC Act which gives them powers to kill stray dogs. According to provision 191 B A (2) of the Municipal Corporation Act, the Municipal Commissioner at his discretion may sell, provide shelter or destroy stray dogs. BMC had stated that it had the powers to kill the dogs. BMC had also stated before the full Bench of Justice Dr S Radhakrishnan, Justice D B Bhosale and Justice V K Tahilramani about the huge financial constraints in rehabilitation of stray dogs in dog shelters. BMC contended there was no need for additional dog shelters as they had kennels. Besides dogs could also be given for adoption. However, NGOs and animal activists say that the provision under the corporation act goes against article 51 A (g) of the Constitution of India which says it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to be compassionate to animals. Earlier, an affidavit by the joint executive health officer G T Ambe stated that, “Maintenance of stray dogs at dog shelters involves huge expenditure running into crores of rupees which would be a huge financial strain on the MCGM. It is questionable whether MCGM should spend crores of rupees on feeding stray dogs when we do not do so for the poor in Mumbai, who are starving.” Ambe further stated that “Municipal corporation feeding dogs taken out of Mumbai certainly does not deserve priority over the poor people of Mumbai.” The court was also informed that as per the dog census of October 2007, there are 70,182 stray dogs in Mumbai and 26,900 pet dogs. The hearing will continue on October 10. |
