Sharmila Tagore’s plea on stray dogs: SC says 'don't glorify dogs in hospitals'

The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 8) described actor Sharmila Tagore’s arguments against a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the stray dog problem as “completely removed from reality”.

SC questions Tagore

The apex court also examined, point by point, the examples cited by Tagore to oppose recent measures aimed at dealing with strays in public spaces, observing that they did not support her case.

“You are completely removed from reality. Do not try to glorify these dogs in hospitals,” the court said after her counsel cited the example of a friendly dog that has lived on the AIIMS campus for several years.

Also Read: Stray dogs case: Supreme Court flags videos of attacks on children, elderly

Before the court made its sharp remarks, Tagore’s lawyer submitted that while some dogs may need to be euthanised, they should first be identified as “aggressive” by a competent committee.

Court rebuffs AIIMS example

“We suggest an expert committee to assess canine behaviour… to distinguish between aggressive and normal dogs,” the lawyer said, adding, “There is a dog named ‘Goldie’ in AIIMS. She has been there for many years.”

Responding to the AIIMS example, the court retorted, “Was she also being taken into the hospital operation theatre?"

“Any dog on the streets is bound to have ticks. A dog with ticks inside a hospital can have disastrous consequences. Do you understand? We will show you the reality of what is being argued,” the Bench said.

“You are completely removed from reality. Do not attempt to glorify these dogs in hospitals,” the court reiterated.

Foreign models dismissed

Tagore’s counsel then suggested colour-coding collars to identify dogs that had bitten people, a practice followed in countries such as Georgia and Armenia.

The court rejected the suggestion, saying, “What is the population of those countries? Please be realistic, counsel.”

Also Read: Supreme Court flags rising dog bite cases, slams ABC rule failure

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi referred to the court’s verdict in the Aravalli hills case, noting that it was delivered “without the aid of an expert committee”.

No blanket removal

The top court clarified that it had not ordered the removal of all dogs from the streets, and that its directions were limited to treating stray dogs in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules.

In her petition, Tagore argued that addressing the stray dog issue required a scientific and psychological approach.

“The ABC rules may not be foolproof and require review. The solution lies in science, psychology and a module-specific framework where dogs are captured and then released,” her counsel said.

Also Read: SC notes surge in stray dog pleas, says human cases see fewer filings

The court was also informed that removing dogs from public spaces nationwide could cost the government up to Rs 26,800 crore.