DogExpress
The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to “Stray Dogs Eradication Group” and “Attingal Municipality” in Kerala based on a petition filed for allegedly killing stray dogs, even after several SC orders directing them to abstain from the act.
Justice Dipak Misra stated that all respondents should be present on July 17 to explain their actions to the court.
According to the petition that has been filed by the lawyer and activist, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, on behalf of Ms. Nikita Anand, claim that activities of the respondents violate 3 orders of the Apex Court.
Supreme Court Orders
In November 2017, SC ordered all local authorities and Panchayats to refrain from killing stray dogs. It mentioned that no “subterfuge or innovative methods” should be used to avoid the direct order from the court, as it won’t be tolerated.
“As stated earlier, we will advert to the same at a later stage, but for the present it is suffice to say that all the State municipal corporations, municipal committees, district boards and local bodies shall be guided by the Act and the Rules and it is the duty and obligation of the Animal Welfare Board to see that they are followed with all seriousness…Needless to emphasize, no innovative method or subterfuge should be adopted not to carry out the responsibility under the 1960 Act or the 2001 Rules. Any kind of laxity while carrying out statutory obligations, is not countenanced in law,” said the Bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice S.K. Singh.
Second Order – No stray dogs should be killed by individuals acting as Vigilante
In October, 2016, SC ordered the State of Kerala to make sure that no stray dog is killed by individuals or vigilantes.
“At this juncture, we have been shown certain photographs at the Bar which carries the caption “Kerala Politicians beat street dogs to death, hang them on a pole and take out a parade”… The response shall be supported by the affidavit of the Chief Secretary of the State. Needless to say, it will be an obligation of the State of Kerala to see that the orders passed by this Court are followed scrupulously and there is no public demonstration in the manner in which the photographs depict,” said The Bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice U.U. Lalit.
Third order – To Jose Maveli, Chairman of Stray Dogs Eradication Group
In November, 2016 – the third order was passed that asked Mr. Jose Maveli, Chairman of the Stray Dogs Eradication Group to explain his actions in the court after he killed street dogs in Kerala. (Photo evidence of Mr. Maveli killing street dogs were submitted to court.)
Why SC issuing a notice on contempt plea now?
Despite direct SC orders, Mr. Maveli conducted public meetings where he openly asked people to
“Participate in Stray dogs’ eradication movement for a united stray dog free Kerala citizens’ movement! He further added that, “Till 2001 all Panchayats could kill the stray dogs, not just aggressive dogs but all the stray dogs. Now SC has passed order that we can kill only aggressive dogs…we will respect the Honorable court and not question its order so we are saying that that we can kill aggressive dogs.”
It has been alleged that he has butchered 11 stray dogs, with the help from Mr. Ranjan Varapuzha, called as the “dog catcher and serial killer” by the Petition.
According to the petition, several officials of the Attingal Municipality in Kerala have also been accused of helping the dog killing groups.
Condemning such actions of the Respondents, the Petition contends, “The actions of the Respondents are setting back the progress made in the hearings of the afore-mentioned Special Leave Petition (The All India Stray Dogs case) by years every time they indulge in such lumpen vigilantism. For precious hearing time is devoted in handling their wanton disregard for the law rather than discussing the module for the management of the stray dog’s population as submitted by the Animal Welfare Board India of India. By their actions, they are undoing all the progress made in the main matter.”
As per the petition filed by Mr. Prashant Bhushan,
“The actions of the Respondents do not just violate the animal protection laws of India but a direct assault on the sanctity of a judicial order as pronounced by this Hon’ble Court. That the Respondents have deliberately and willfully violated the orders of this Hon’ble Court. If such violations are not dealt, swiftly and sternly, by this Hon’ble Court then it will send a very wrong message to society that the orders of the apex court can be trifled with and there are no consequences for even the most open and egregious defiance. The actions of the Respondents are making a mockery of the majesty of this Hon’ble Court and invite the wrath of this Court to its fullest extent.”
Reference: Live Law.in
Share your thoughts with us in the comments below!
in Chandigarh, India. 
