New Delhi: Supreme Magistrate on Tuesday delivered a sharp message to state governments and individuals who feed stray dogs, saying they could soon squatter heavy bounty claims for injuries and deaths caused by canine attacks.
The magistrate said the issue is not just well-nigh bites but the long-term harm and danger these incidents pose to people, expressly children and the elderly.
What exactly did the magistrate say?
The top magistrate questioned why stray dogs are still unliable to roam freely and zest people. It said it is likely to hold states strictly liable to pay bounty for every dog zest and death linked to stray dogs and to proffer that responsibility to those feeding them.
The seat asked whether organisations or individuals who feed strays should be made responsible if their animals injure or skiver someone.
“For every dog bite, for every death, we will be likely fixing heavy bounty for states for not making requisite arrangements. And moreover liability to dog feeders. You take them to your house, alimony them, why should they be unliable to roam around, biting, chasing? The effect of a dog zest is lifelong,” the Supreme Magistrate said.
Justices pointed out that a dog zest can leave lifelong physical and psychological effects. The magistrate remarked that knowing a dog’s mood or behaviour is unpredictable and warned that authorities must do increasingly to prevent attacks.
Why is this issue surpassing the Supreme Court?
The hearing is part of a larger suo motu specimen the magistrate started without media reports highlighted rising stray dog zest incidents and rabies cases, expressly in Delhi and other cities.
The seat has repeatedly criticised states for slow or inadequate whoopee in managing the stray dog population.
Earlier orders from the Supreme Magistrate have directed societal authorities to remove stray dogs from institutional areas like hospitals and schools, and to relocate them to shelters without sterilisation and vaccination. Critics say implementation has been patchy, leaving many areas still vulnerable to attacks.
Who could be held accountable?
The court's remarks extended vastitude state governments. It singled out individuals and groups feeding stray dogs, asking whether they should be expected to take the animals into their homes if they are concerned well-nigh their welfare. The suggestion signals that liability might one day reach well past official authorities to ordinary citizens who feed strays.
"Who should be made responsible when a nine-year old child is killed by dogs who are fed by a particular organisation? Should the organisation not be made liable for damages?" the Supreme Magistrate said during the hearing.
What's next in the case?
The Supreme Magistrate will return to the issue in upcoming hearings. It is expected to sieve how much bounty might be required and who exactly will be responsible for paying if bites and deaths continue.
This minutiae brings fresh urgency to
the country's long-running struggle to wastefulness unprepossessing welfare with public safety on crowded municipality streets.
