Are human lives more valuable than animals? And thereby a human being can do whatever it wants to them? Most of us think so, and now even the honourable judiciary of Kerala too agrees with them.
Though stray dog killing is prohibited by law and animal activists do their best to protect these, but now court has come to the defence of the torturers and practically given them a signal to do whatever they want to.
In a case, where a group of people have caught 4 stray dogs with trap (I don't suppose it would be very humane method, we have dog catchers, who catch them with nets) they transported these dogs to a forest, and then tied them to trees, to either die of hunger and thirst or be eaten by wild beasts.
A case was booked against these people, by the activists, and that case was quashed by higher court with the observation by the judge.
The Justice quashing the cases, made an observed that the menace of stray dogs was on the increase. People took certain measures that they believed was necessary to protect innocent persons. Certainly, the life of a human being was more valuable than the life of a stray dog. I do not think that the petitioners wanted to subject the dogs to cruelty. Their intention was only to protect human beings.
The trapping of the dogs, almost certainly not the ones that were 'Culprits' tying them to trees, toi die, are they not cruelty ? Then what is cruelty?
As far as the stray dog menace is there, a bit of care would be sufficient to avoid confrontation or injury, to both. Which we won't do, and blame the dogs, who can't have their say in the human court.
And that is when the Top most court has said that Stray dogs too have a right to live and destruction of them should be only when an individual is rabid or dangerous, while directing the states to create dog houses and to catch the stray dogs, and vaccinate, even sterilise if state decides and release them back. Here we have someone from lower court de-facto encouraging to do the opposite.
