New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the central and Kerala governments on a public interest suit seeking immediate halt to the killing of street dog by Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation.
Notice has also been issued to Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation.
A bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice P C Pant sought the response of the governments and the civic body as public interest petitioner Anupam Tripathi described as illegal and cruel the killing of the street and stray dogs.
Having issued notice returnable in two weeks, the court asked senior counsel Dushyant Dave to assist the court in the matter as it directed next hearing of the matter on October 26.
Tripathi told the court that the decision to cull the stray dogs was against the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Animal Birth Control Rules and the other penal provisions.
The culling of the stray dogs is being carried out following an all-party meeting July 9, with Chief Minister Oommen Chandy in the chair, where it was decided eliminate more than 2.5 lakh street dogs.
Making it clear that it does not want to generate "unemployment", the court said those who would lose their livelihood can't be compensated in terms of alternate jobs, financial or other support if the firecracker industry was shut down.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked why firecrackers were being singled out for rising pollution levels when automobiles caused much more pollution. It asked the Centre to apprise it with a comparative study of the two.
Linking the plea for a ban on the manufacture, sale and bursting of firecrackers across the country with Article 19 (1)(g) guaranteeing the right to occupation, trade or business, a bench headed by Justice S.A. Bobde flagged the issue of loss of jobs if there was a clampdown on the firecracker manufacturing industry.
Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees the right “to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”.
Sitting along with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Bobde said the issue had not been examined on the touchstone of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution.
Making it clear that it does not want to generate “unemployment”, the court said those who would lose their livelihood can’t be compensated in terms of alternate jobs, financial or other support if the firecracker industry was shut down.
Observing how there can be a ban on the firecracker industry whose operations were legal and licensed, Justice Bobde said the way out was not cancelling the license but there could be a change in the licensing conditions.
The top court’s observations came in the course of hearing a PIL by a toddler — Arjun Gopal — seeking ban on the manufacture, sale and bursting of firecrackers across the country.
Noting the work being done by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) to produce green firecrackers, the top court had in its last order asked NEERI and PESO to stick the timeline culminating in the bulk production of firecrackers based on the new formulations by May 10, 2019.
The top court had in October 2018 permitted the use of only green firecrackers with reduced emission and decibel levels during all religious festivals. (IANS)