With the Supreme Court permitting municipal authorities to adopt legally permissible measures, including euthanasia in cases involving “rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous or aggressive dogs,” Bengaluru’s corporations are in a bind as to how to interpret it.

In its order, the Supreme Court clearly underscored that the authorities concerned must undertake euthanasia only after due assessment by qualified veterinary experts and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, and other applicable statutory protocols.

For this purpose, all the corporations will now also have committees of their own to assess the requirement for euthanasia and make a decision on it.

Earlier, euthanasia was possible under the Animal Birth Control Rules (ABC) Rules, which had clear guidelines stating that if a stray dog was incurably injured or mortally ill, euthanasia could be carried out.

The erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) also had a three-member stray dog euthanasia committee, which reviewed such recommendations and decided whether euthanasia should be allowed. The committee consisted of a jurisdictional veterinary officer (BBMP veterinarian), the project-in-charge officer for the animal birth control and anti-rabies vaccination programme, and a representative from the Karnataka Animal Welfare Board.

“The committee would seek reports on a dog’s health, conduct a physical verification, and assess its condition, which would clearly establish whether the dog could be euthanised,” a GBA source explained.

Now, even if a feral dog is considered an aggressive canine, there are no guidelines on the level of aggression at which the committee can declare that the dog should be euthanised, according to GBA sources.

Misuse of the provision

Arun Prasad, an animal rights activist, pointed out that this grey area could allow civic body officials to exploit the law and could lead to the unnecessary killing of stray dogs. “We already have many cases of mishandling of stray dog cases, and this provision will only lead to similar incidents,” he cautioned.

However, a GBA official explained that the decision would still rest with the committees, which would ensure transparency.

Review petition

Nevina Kamath, co-petitioner in SLP(C) 691 of 2009, told The Hindu that they are planning to file a review petition or contempt petition, arguing that the previous order was violated through the recent order.

“The previous order in SLP(C) 691 was fair, upheld all constitutional safeguards, and was a detailed one. The new order contradicts it and meddles with the earlier order,” she said.

She explained that some canines with neurological conditions can sometimes display erratic behaviour that mimics the symptoms of rabies. With the new order, such cases could be misinterpreted as aggressive behaviour or rabies.