[ad_1]
The Delhi High Court recently issued notice in a plea challenging the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act on “detention”and “disposal” of unregistered and unclaimed dogs found in public places.
The plea further seeks a direction of “striking down” an advisory issued by the MCD printed in a newspaper on September 12 and further restraining the MCD from removing, killing or harming any street dog/community dog or stray dog.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad on October 14 were hearing a public interest litigation petition filed by one Kamini Khanna (appearing in person), challenging certain provisions of Section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 as well as an advisory issued by the MCD under the section.
The High Court issued a notice to the respondents — the Central Government through the Ministry of Home Affairs (Respondent 1) and the Ministry of Environment and Wildlife (Respondent 2), the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Respondent 3) and the Animal Welfare board of India (Respondent 4).
Anurag Ahluwalia, the Central government standing counsel, accepted the notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Sanjeev Sabharwal, standing counsel, accepted the notice on behalf of the MCD. The High Court directed the petitioner to supply a complete set of the petition to the respondents’ counsels within a week and further directed the respondents to file their replies before the next date of hearing on February 10, 2023.
The petitioner became aware of the advisory through a newspaper article published last month and her attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 399 which she has claimed are unconstitutional. According to the petitioner, the advisory states that Section 399 of the DMC Act makes registration of pets with the MCD mandatory. The plea refers to the newspaper article which reads, “The section also gives power to the MCD to detain a dog found in a public place, if a pet dog is not registered with the civic body, the civic body said in a statement.”
“We appeal to citizens to get their pet dogs registered at the earliest, otherwise appropriate action can be taken as per DMC Act. The rule applies even to those who have adopted stray dogs,” the statement reads.
The plea claims that the advisory issued by the MCD will have wider ramifications affecting the entire city as they are attempting to invoke a redundant law lying dormant for the last 60 years. The plea claims that the MCD is misusing its power in an arbitrary manner and it is a case of over reach of jurisdiction. The petitioner believes that the recent incidents of dog bites in Noida and Ghaziabad were “staged”, pursuant to which the advisory of the MCD was issued.
The petitioner has challenged Section 399(1) c and d and (2) a and b of the act as unconstitutional. Section 399(1) c requires that any dog which has not been registered or which is not wearing a token, if found in any public place will be detained at a place set apart for the purpose. Subsection (1) (d) states that the commissioner can fix and charge a fee for detaining an unregistered dog and further “any such dog shall be liable to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of unless it is claimed and the fee in respect thereof is paid within one week”.
Section 399 (2) (a)states that the commissioner may direct a dog to be destroyed or confined which is “reasonably suspected to be, suffering from rabies, or which has been bitten by any dog or other animal suffering or suspected to be suffering from rabies”. Under Subsection (b) the commissioner by public notice can direct that, after such date as may be specified in the notice, dogs which are without collars or without marks distinguishing them as private property found “straying on the streets or beyond the enclosures of the houses of their owners, if any, may be destroyed and cause them to be destroyed accordingly”.
The plea further claims that the provisions of Section 399 of the DMC Act are in conflict with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the rules therein.
[ad_2]
Source link