Aw: (IN) Kerala capital to obey Indian dog law?

[Guest guest]

> > This is wrong ,the high court did NOT say

>that Trivandrum could continue killing [in April

>2007]

 

 

I have just been looking into this.

 

The actual ruling appears to have been

originally issued on March 3, 2006, in response

to a 2004 petition. It was somewhat ambiguous,

pertaining chiefly to the extent of municipal

jurisdiction, and was read in different ways by

defenders and foes of street dogs.

 

This summarizes the prevailing

perspective on the verdict at the time it was

issued:

 

 

>The Hindu Monday, March 20, 2006

>

>FRAT plea to end street dog menace

>Staff Reporter

>

>THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Federation of Residents Associations

>Thiruvananthapuram (FRAT) has demanded that the local body institutions

>in the district should take steps to eliminate street dogs that are

>posing a threat to the public.

>

>Federation president T.K. Bhaskara Panicker and general secretary

>Paraniyam Devakumar said in a statement here on Sunday that by refusing

>to take action to end the street dog menace, the heads of civic bodies

>were denying people their right to lead a peaceful life. They had

>failed to discharge their primary duty to ensure the fundamental rights

>of the public, they said.

>

>The High Court verdict granting permission to

>end the street dog threat had come as a great

>relief for the people in the city as well as in

>rural areas.

>

>The verdict had come as a blessing to the local body institutions,

>which could not effectively take effective steps

>to sterilise street dogs. The municipalities as

>well as grama panchayats should now expedite

>steps to kill street dogs and save the people,

>they said.

 

 

 

The Thiruvanathapuram municipal

government cited the ruling in April 2007, when

Paloli Mohammed Kutty ordered the government to

" end the stray dog menace before May. "

 

A.G. Babu then responded as follows, on April 29, 2007:

 

 

---

 

 

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 mannerŠ. 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.

 

 

---

 

However, the Thiruvanathapuram municipal

government stood by their interpretation, which

allowed them to kill practically every dog they

handled, in the name of doing ABC.

 

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent

newspaper providing original investigative

coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded

in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes

the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal

protection organizations. We have no alignment

or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]