Right to Life under Article 21 of Constitution includes right to move freely without constant fear of dog bites: SC

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to move freely without constant fear of physical harm or other life threatening events such as dog bites in public areas.

While issuing directions to curb stray dog attacks on peoole in public areas, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria ruled that “the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack or exposure to life threatening events, such as dog bites in public areas.”

Advertisement

The bench also made several other major observations and said that the State cannot remain a “passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate in the face of statutory mechanisms, specifically designed to address them.”

The top court further noted that the State and Union Territories are under a continuing constitutional obligation to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Such obligation, the Bench added, extends to the the creation, augmentation, and sustained maintenance of adequate infrastructure, or effective implementation of the ABC framework, including sterilisation, vaccination, sheltering and overall scientific management of stray dogs.

“The Court also cannot remain oblivious to the harsh and deeply disturbing ground realities emerging from various parts of the country, where young children have been mauled, elderly persons have been attacked, ordinary citizens have been left vulnerable in public spaces, and even international travellers have fallen victim to such incidents,” the Bench said.

The Supreme Court further stated that the Constitution of India does not envisage a society where children, elderly persons, and vulnerable citizens are “compelled to survive at the mercy of physical strength, chance or circumstance owing to the failure of the State machinery, to discharge its constitutional and statutory obligations.”

The apex court also flagged the “discernable absence” of sustained, systematic and incremental efforts on part of the State and Union Territories to fortify and expand the infrastructure required in proportion to the increasing population of the stray dogs even after more than two decades since the introduction of ABC rules.

“Such an approach is neither efficient nor capable of yielding durable resolutions, particularly in a matter involved in public health, human safety, and ecological balance,” the Bench said, adding that the harm caused by such incidents is not merely statistical in nature, but has grave human, societal and public health consequences.