“THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT AS OF DATE HAS NOT HELD THAT IF A STRAY DOG BITES A HUMAN, THE PERSON WHO FEEDS THAT DOG SHOULD BEAR THE TREATMENT AND COMPENSATION COSTS”
ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA – APEALLANT VS PEOPLE FOR ELIMINATION OF STRAY TROUBLES AND ORS. RESPONDENTS – CA NO. 5988/2019
Certain directions were passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in batch of appeals filed by the Animal Welfare Board of India and other parties – Appellant challenging the orders passed by the different High Courts in relation to stray dog’s issues and also against a 2015 judgment of the Kerala High Court which permitted capturing and destruction of stray dogs.
It is relevant to point and mention here for the sake of clarity for as an awareness that over internet, a misleading post is prevailing which acclaims that according to a Supreme Court’s order in this case case, “if a stray dog bites a human, the person who feeds that dog should bear the treatment and compensation costs”.
It is apprised that in the said case as per the records, Supreme Court has not passed any such order or directions.
The case regarding the compensation for stray dog bites is still being heard and that as of today, Kerala is the only state in the country which gives compensation for the victims of stray dog bites in accordance to Siri Jagan committee. However, the compensation is provided by local governments depending on the nature of the wounds and gravity of the accident caused by stray dog.
Hence, to sum it up, there is no Supreme court judgement that says the person who feeds the stray dog is liable in case of dog bites. The claim made in the said post over internet is false.
Further the Supreme Court has also observed that approaching the High Court is the appropriate remedy as these are the area-specific problems which need to be taken into consideration. The Supreme Court can however frame guidelines.
It was apprised by the Hon’ble apex court that one may have a genuine concern over the stray dog menace as to anyone would be scared to go to the place where dog bites are reported or send their children to play out.
Therefore one may approach to the High Court of that jurisdiction for appropriate redressal of these menace and in case of any adverse order passed by High Court, one may appeal to the apex court.
The Supreme Court clarified that it will adjudicate the larger legal issue relating to the inconsistency between the State rules and Central rules in relation to stray dog control.
It was categorically stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court that there would be individual cases relating to applicability and enforcement of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 1960 therefore while passing any order, the High Courts would have to bear in mind the previous orders and precedents set by the Apex Court
The matter has been adjourned for further hearing by the Hon’ble Apex Court to February, 2023.
***
