(IN) Letter to Paloli Muhammedkutty, minister Kerala

[Guest guest]

Mr. Paloli Muhammed Kutty

Minister for Local Self Governance

Thiruvananthapuram

 

 

Sir,

 

A highly misleading impression is being created that the Hon'ble

High Court of Kerala in its order WP © No. 30611 of 2004 dated

3.3.2006 has endorsed the killing of stray dogs indiscriminately. The

judgment – of Hon'ble Judges V. K. Bali and J.B. Koshi – in itself is

complete and never gives a free rein to local bodies to kill stray

dogs at their will. Unfortunately an impression was created otherwise

and dogs are being caught and poisoned or given lethal injections.

 

The Hon'ble Court has emphasized and insisted upon the sanctity

and supremacy of PCA Act 1960 over the Animal Birth Control (ABC)

Rules, 2001.

 

The Hon'ble Court clearly points out the 5 (five) following

sections from PCA Act 1960, in its judgment.

 

1) Section 9(f) : " To take all such steps as the Board may think fit

to ensure that unwanted animals are destroyed by local authorities,

whenever it is necessary to do so, either instantaneously or after

being rendered insensible to pain or suffering " .

 

The Board above is the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) which has

clearly stated that it does not favour any other method than ABC

Programme for stray dog population control and rabies management; as

there are clear provisions in the ABC rules even to destroy unwanted

or terminally sick dogs.

 

2) Section 11(3)(b) : " The destruction of stray dogs in lethal

chambers or (by such other methods as may be prescribed) "

 

This is the only section in the PCA Act which specifies the only

method with which stray dogs can be killed. Though this method

reminisces of the Nazi gas chambers, the British in the past favoured

it (this system is not prevalent in Britain now). To follow an obey

the above provision every municipality or panchayat has to build its

own lethal chamber as per the standards prescribed to execute the

stray dogs (it is further understood that no " by such other methods as

may be prescribed " , has come into existence, except the more humane

and scientific methods like Euthanasia as described in ABC Rules

2001).

 

3) Sec. 38(1) : " The Central Govt may, by notification in the Official

Gazette and subject to the condition of previous publications, make

rules to carry out the purposes of this Act " .

 

The Animal Birth Control Rules comes under this provision and the

Hon'ble High Court refers to this.

 

4) Sec. 38(2) : " In particular and without prejudice to the generality

of the forgoing power, the Central Government may make rules providing

for all or any of the following matters namely: "

 

The Central Government has made rules for the Transportation,

Performing, Experimenting, Breeding etc. and even Slaughter of

animals. But no new methods regarding killing of stray dogs (other

than prescribed in the ABC Rules 2001) has been framed so far.

 

5. Sec. 38(2) (e-a) : " The other methods of destruction of stray dogs

referred to in clause (b) of subsection (3) of Section 11 " .

 

The above section refers to methods of killing of strays using

other methods than lethal chambers – i.e., the framing of ABC Rules

2001 only.

 

From the above it is clearly visible that while interpreting and

commenting the P.C.A. Act 1960, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has

never proclaimed the killing of stray dogs using other methods except

those prescribed by the P.C.A. Act.

 

Further the Hon. High Court reiterates the supremacy and

sanctity of the provision of the P.C.A. Act 1960. The Whole Act of

1960, (as the name itself suggests the Prevention of Cruelty towards

animals), the spirit of the Act in total ensures that no animal is put

to unnecessary pain or suffering.

 

The 'pro-kill lobbyists' should carefully read the following

provision in Section 11(1)(l) of P.C.A. Act,

 

" if any person mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including

stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine unnecessarily in the

heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner…. he shall be

punishable.

 

Let me invite your attention to the W.P. No. 1596 of 1998 dated

25th June 1999 where the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai asked

for reviewing an earlier order of the Bombay High Court (restraining

it from killing stray dogs and instead resorting to guidelines issued

by the Hon. High Court).

 

The above order way back in 1999 acted as a guideline for

framing the ABC Rules 2001.

 

It is quite sad to remind ourselves (the most literate

Keralites) that we already are still lagging behind in understanding

and responding to laws related to animals.

 

We have not succeeded in reducing the number of stray dogs or

the fear towards rabies even after following the archaic and

unscientific methods of 'capture and kill strays' for more than 50

years. The reports of WHO and the live examples of other cities prove

that methods involving animal birth control are the only viable and

successful alternatives. Some municipalities and panchayats in Kerala

still are groping between the unsaid lines of the judgment of the Hon.

High Court of Kerala to find excuses for killing stray dogs.

 

The P.C.A. Act 1960 and the judgment from the Hon. High Court of

Kerala, clearly prohibits the present system of capturing and killing

of dogs.

 

I request you to ensure that the law of the land should prevail

and the lives of the " guardians of the street " should be managed

humanely and scientifically for our own welfare and benefit.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

A. G. Babu

Secretary

Idukki S.P.C.A.