Catching Strays

The recent controversy around street dogs provides a clear example of what happens when a target is identified in India today. Public discourse, conducted through television channels and social media, follows a predictable template: broad essentialist claims are made about an entire demographic, and sensational narratives are immediately put to work, which, in turn, embolden the worst instincts in our society. When logic turns perverse that quickly, you are never too far from extreme solutions. Safety is presented as a zero-sum game, demanding the complete subjugation of the alleged threat.

On 11 August, the Supreme Court passed an extraordinary order on the stray dogs of the National Capital Region, instructing that they be removed from the streets, en masse, and dumped into shelters, never to be released. These shelters did not exist at the time, and still do not. There was no land earmarked for them, either, and governments do not have the personnel to execute this cruel and unscientific mission. The two-judge bench refused to allow anyone other than the union government to intervene. The highest court in the land choosing not to even engage with other stakeholders—even explicitly stating, “For the time being, forget the rules”—was a significant low in a season of lows for constitutional authorities.

A groundswell of protests across the country forced the Supreme Court to revisit the matter, and, on 22 August, a three-judge bench modified the order. Although the worst provisions were rolled back, the ruling has a grudging aspect, as though the court’s hand was forced by public discontent. The bench made it clear at the outset that “there is not even the slightest doubt in our minds that the intent behind the order is salutary”—its revisions were merely a “balancing exercise.” It reversed the instruction to never release the dogs, which would now apply only to those deemed aggressive or infected with rabies. It also directed municipal authorities to set up feeding centres while stating that “under no condition” would ordinary citizens be permitted to feed stray dogs on the streets. There was no definition of aggressive behaviour and no indication of what should be done until the feeding centres were established. The judges sought to “expand the scope of this matter” and have invited state governments to implead themselves, which means the issue is likely to remain simmering for years.

The most irregular part of the proceedings was the bench instructing all petitioners to make payments—Rs 25,000 for individuals and Rs 2 lakh for organisations—within seven days, “failing which they shall not be allowed to appear in the matter any further.” This amount, it said, would be used for “the creation of the infrastructure and facilities for the stray dogs.” This provision, meant to limit the number of petitioners, carries an unmistakeable punitive aspect, extracting a cost from those who seek to speak for the dogs, who are, quite obviously, unable to argue their own case in court.