Public health - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization

This Supreme Court order modifies its earlier directions on stray dog management, balancing fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life) with the statutory Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The Court clarified that sterilized and immunized dogs must be released back to their localities as per Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, while allowing permanent impounding only for rabid or aggressively dangerous dogs. It issued supplementary directives, including creating designated feeding zones, and expanded the case's scope to all states and union territories for a uniform national policy. Facts Of The Case: The Supreme Court's intervention was triggered by a suo motu cognizance of a news report titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price,” detailing the death of a six-year-o...

Supreme Court Empowers Pollution Boards to Levy Environmental Damages

The Supreme Court held that Pollution Control Boards can impose restitutionary and compensatory damages, including ex-ante bank guarantees, under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts. This power is distinct from punitive penalties and is grounded in the 'Polluter Pays' principle to remediate environmental damage. Facts Of The Case: The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) issued show cause notices in 2006 to multiple entities, including residential and commercial complexes, for operating without the mandatory "consent to establish" and "consent to operate" under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. As a condition for granting consent, the DPCC demanded the payment of fixed sums a...

Section 26 NGT Act Strictly Applied: Supreme Court Clarifies Penal Liability in Environmental Violations

The Supreme Court ruled that penalties under Section 26 of the NGT Act, 2010 cannot be imposed without proving willful disobedience by the accused. It held that the Mayor, not being a party to the original proceedings and lacking executive authority over waste management, could not be penalized for violations. However, the Municipal Corporation's fine for environmental damage was upheld. The Court emphasized that strict construction of penal provisions is necessary and accepted the Mayor's unconditional apology for remarks against the NGT, setting aside his punishment while clarifying the limits of liability under environmental laws Facts Of The Case: Rayons-Enlighting Humanity, Invertis University, and residents of Village Razau Paraspur, Bareilly, filed applications with the Na...