Stray dogs case: SC summons chief secretaries for defying its order

In a stern rebuke to states for their indifference to its directions, the Supreme Court on Friday, 31 October, refused to permit a virtual appearance for chief secretaries in the ongoing stray dogs control case, insisting that they must appear in person before the bench on 3 November.

The courtroom exchange unfolded after solicitor general Tushar Mehta requested that all chief secretaries — except those from West Bengal and Telangana — be allowed to attend proceedings through video conference. But the bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was unmoved.

“When we require them to come and file compliance affidavits, they are just sleeping over it,” justice Nath observed sharply. “No respect for the court’s order. Then alright—let them come.”

The rebuke comes amid growing judicial frustration over the failure of states to file compliance affidavits regarding the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, which govern the management of stray dogs.

At its 27 October hearing, the apex court had directed chief secretaries of all states and Union Territories — barring West Bengal and Telangana — to appear before it on 3 November, to explain why they had not submitted the affidavits despite a clear order issued on 22 August.

That 22 August order had significantly widened the ambit of the case — originally focused on the Delhi-NCR region — by making all states and UTs parties to the proceedings. The court had asked municipal authorities nationwide to submit detailed reports outlining their resources for dog control efforts, including dog pounds, veterinarians, dog catchers, and specially equipped vehicles and cages.

The Supreme Court’s firm stance underscores its impatience with bureaucratic inertia over a mounting public health issue. The suo motu case, initiated on 28 July, followed a disturbing media report on the surge in stray dog attacks and rabies cases, particularly involving children in the national capital.

By insisting on physical attendance, the bench appeared intent on sending a message — that compliance with the court’s directions is not optional, and that the states must take the stray dog menace, and the suffering it causes, with the seriousness it deserves.

With PTI inputs