New Delhi [India], January 9 : The Supreme Court on Friday said the arguments of actor Sharmila Tagore against a one-size-fits-all approach to tackle the stray dog problem are "completely devoid of reality."
"You are completely removed from reality. Don't try to glorify these dogs in hospitals," said a three-judge special bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria after her lawyer gave the example of a friendly dog that has been living on the AIIMS campus for many years.
Her lawyer said 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," he said.
As the lawyer said, "There is a dog named 'Goldie' in AIIMS. She's been there for many years", the bench replied, "Was she (Goldie) 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 will 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 bench remarked.
Thereafter, the lawyer cited an example of Georgia and Armenia, suggesting colour-coding collars for dogs in order to identify them as an aggressive dog or a normal one.
"What is the population of those countries? Please be realistic counsel," the apex court told the lawyer, asking him to be realistic regarding India's population.
The bench today heard detailed arguments in the suo motu case initiated by it on the issue of stray dogs menace in public places.
The hearing in the case will continue on Tuesday.
The bench also declined to go into the allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by purported anti-feeder vigilantes, since it was a law-and-order issue and the aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs about it.
It observed that some of the arguments made before it were far from reality, and there were a number of videos of stray dogs attacking children and the elderly.
Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani informed the top court about the plight of women dog feeders and caregivers and said anti-feeder vigilantes have assumed the role of enforcing the court's order passed earlier in the matter.
Under the garb of this, they are harassing women, they are molesting women, and they are beating women, she said.
The bench asked the lawyer to lodge an FIR against them, and if anyone was harassing or molesting women, it was a crime, and the aggrieved person could set the criminal law in motion by lodging an FIR.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu, also appearing in the matter for stray dogs' rights, said this was now not entirely a matter about dogs or humans, and it was about certain constitutional principles.
On November 7, the three-judge bench, while taking into consideration the "alarming rise of dog bite incidents", ordered all states and Union Territories (UTs) to ensure the removal of all stray dogs from every educational institution, hospital, public sports complexes, bus stands, railway stations, etc.
It said all these institutions and places must be fenced properly to prevent the entry of stray dogs.
The stray dogs should not be released to the same spot from which they were picked up, ordered the bench. It had also said that permitting their return would "frustrate the very purpose" of securing such premises and addressing public safety concerns.
It will be the responsibility of the concerned local government institutions to pick up stray dogs from such institutions/areas, and shift them to designated dog shelters after vaccination and sterilisation in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, the apex court had ordered.
The apex court order had come on a suo moto cognisance it took of the menace of stray dogs across the country.