"Removed From Reality": Top Court Schools Sharmila Tagore On Stray Dogs

The Supreme Court today described actor Sharmila Tagore's arguments against a one-size-fits-all approach to tackling the stray dog menace as "completely devoid from reality."

The Supreme Court also took apart one by one the examples that Tagore gave to support her arguments against recent moves to fix the problem of strays in public areas, which she pointed out may not be the best approach.

"You are completely removed from reality. Don't try to glorify these dogs in hospitals," the Supreme Court said after her lawyer gave the example of a friendly dog that has been living on the AIIMS campus for many years.

Before the Supreme Court's strong remarks came, Tagore's lawyer explained that there can certainly be dogs that need to be put to 'sleep', but they should first be identified as "aggressive" by a proper committee.

"We suggest an expert committee for considering the behaviour of dogs... Let's see the difference between aggressive and normal dogs," Tagore's lawyer said. "There is a dog named 'Goldie' in AIIMS. She's been there for many years."

The Supreme Court, referring to the AIIMS example that Tagore thought would be good enough to support her argument, shot back: "Was she being taken to the hospital operation theatre also? Any dog that's on the streets is bound to have ticks. And a dog with ticks in a hospital will have disastrous consequences. Do you understand? We'll let you know the reality of what is being argued."

"You are completely removed from reality. Don't try to glorify these dogs in the hospitals," the Supreme Court said.

Tagore's lawyer then suggested colour-coding collars to identify dogs that had bitten people, a practice done in nations like Georgia and Armenia.

The Supreme Court demolished that argument also: "What is the population of those countries? Please be realistic counsel."

Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out what happened in the verdict on the Aravalli hills and ranges matter, which came "without experts in a committee".

"Judicial intervention is meant to operate only in the interstices where gaps exist, and not in areas where the legislature has consciously chosen not to legislate. Your lordships will be building a new edifice if they enter into that territory. While our amicus is great, the concept of amici is basically law advisors. They are not domain experts. Your lordships must have domain experts along with the amicus," Singhvi said, dissecting a dense technicality in the matter.

'File FIR'

When senior lawyer Mahalaxmi Pavani raised the issue of people using abusive language against women feeders and caregivers, the Supreme Court alluded to its "completely devoid from reality" comment and said: "People can use derogatory statements for anyone. Things are said about us also. Take action."

Pavani said "anti-feeder vigilantes" have been attacking women and the authorities are silent about it.

"It's happening across the country. In Haryana, societies have hired bouncers. At one place, in 38 seconds, a woman was slapped many times. Yet there is rampant illegal breeding of dogs happening," Pavani said.

"Nothing to do with stray dogs issues, if you have suggestions, you can give... File an FIR if they are attacking women. Go to high court," the Supreme Court said when Pavani alleged no first information reports (FIRs) are being filed into such matters.

The Supreme Court yesterday said it had not directed the removal of every dog from the streets, and the direction was to treat stray canines according to the animal birth control (ABC) rules.

Tagore in her petition said tackling the issue of strays need the help of science and psychology. "The ABC rules may not be foolproof, so it needs to be given a look... The answer is science, psychology, and a module-specific framework whereby dogs have to be captured and then released," her lawyer said.

The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday that removing dogs from public spaces can cost up to Rs 26,800 crore to the government.