During hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court responded to a request for alleged harassment for feeding dogs in Noida by asking the petitioner: “Why don’t you feed them in your own house?”
As the PTI states, the Vikram Nath and Sandeep bench told Mehta to the petitioner:
Also read: Stray Dog Attack caught on camera: The young girl pulled and bitten into Karnatak’s Hubballi as she screamed in pain
The reason was covered by the Supreme Court in Allahabad in March 2025.
He said that the petitioner said, he was subjected to harassment and was unable to feed community dogs in accordance with the rules of controlling the contraception of animals.
Rule 20 Rules for Control of Contraception of Animals, 2023 deals with the feeding of community animals and builds a burden on a resident association of social care or association of the apartment owners or representatives of the local authority in the local area to take the necessary measures for feeding community animals located in premises or areas.
However, the best court said, “We provide you with a proposal to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own home.”
The attorney of the petitioner claimed that they adhere to the regulations and noted that while the municipalities founded determined feed areas in a larger Noida, such arrangements were not made in Noida.
He suggested that the feed points could be determined in places that the public does not normally use.
“Are you going to cycling in the morning?” The bench asked, “Try to do it and find out what happens”.
When the advisor said he was walking for morning walks and sees several dogs, the bench said, “Morning pedestrians are also at risk. Cycle riders and two -rounds are at greater risk.”
The bench then marked the action by a separate waiting prosecutor of a similar problem.
At the High Court, the petitioner was looking for instructions for implementing the provisions of the rules with proper care and caution with regard to the provisions of the Act on the Prevention of Animals of 1960.
Also read: Indian sophistication on stray dogs can be confusing
“While the protection of street dogs would be guaranteed in accordance with the provisions of the valid status, the authorities will also remember the fears of an ordinary person, so their movement on the streets is not attacks with these street dogs,” said the High Court.
The High Court therefore expected that the state authorities would show the “proper sensitivity” to the concerns of the petitioner and the ordinary person on the streets.
The High Court said his observation was important due to the recent increase in attacks on street dogs that caused death and serious inconvenience for pedestrians.
There is all space for these animals, no space for humans.
We provide a proposal to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house.
The Court dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the merit to deal with the concerns he had raised. He emphasized the need to protect the vicious animals and at the same time ensured that the public security and interests of pedestrians were not endangered.
(Tagstotranslate) Supreme Court (T) Community PSI
