SC to examine plea against stray dog culling in Karnataka
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a plea seeking contempt action against the Chief Officer of Municipal Council of Karnataka's Sakaleshapura, Wilson VT, and private contractor V George Robert, on allegations of mass culling of stray dogs. A bench of Justices, N V Ramana and M M Shantanagoudar, issued a notice to both and sought their response in four weeks.
George was paid Rs. 91,537 for catching, relocating 350 strays
According to the petition filed by animal rights activist, Naveena Kamath, Wilson had given a contract to George to catch and then relocate stray dogs within his municipality. George was paid Rs. 91,537 for catching and relocating 350 stray dogs. It said that the respondents have "deliberately and willfully" violated the orders of this court and contempt proceedings should be initiated against them.
Earlier, SC had asked authorities to follow PCA, ABC rules
Advocate Siddharth Garg, appearing for Kamath, said on November 18, 2015, the court had directed that all local authorities and panchayats should strictly follow the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2001. The court has also said that no "subterfuge or innovative methods" to circumvent the order of the court will be tolerated.
Acts allow catching of stray dogs only for sterilization
Garg said the PCA Act, 1960 and the ABC Rules, 2001 prohibit any wanton catching and relocation of stray dogs and only allow catching for the purpose of sterilization and relocation back to the same place, where the stray dogs were picked up. He added that the Acts do not allow any such catching and dislocating as done by Wilson and George.
'Stern action necessary or it'll send wrong-message to society'
The plea further said that if such violations are not dealt, swiftly and sternly, by this Court, then it'll send a very wrong message to society that the SC orders can be trifled with and there are no consequences for even the most open and egregious defiance. "The actions of the Respondents are making a mockery of the majesty of this Court," it said.
