Within the Stray Canine case, dad and mom of the minor sufferer whose demise led the Supreme Courtroom to take suo motu cognizance, made arguments at present.
A newspaper article within the Instances of India in regards to the 6-year previous’s demise, “In a metropolis hounded by strays, youngsters pay the worth”, led the Supreme Courtroom to take suo motu cognizance of the problem final August.
They knowledgeable the Courtroom at present that hospitals had been responsible of negligence within the matter as they refused well timed remedy.
Elevating this argument, the dad and mom sought an enquiry. Although some counsels tried to contest the sufferer’s reason for demise, arguing that the demise of the minor was not as a consequence of rabies, the Courtroom shunned them from commenting on the case.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matter.
It might be recalled that the suo motu case was trigged by a information report on the demise of 6-year previous Chavi Sharma, who was attacked and bitten a number of instances by a stray canine in Pooth Kalan, Delhi. The sufferer was administered 3 doses of rabies vaccine, however tragically, handed away, Allegedly, she was referred from hospital to hospital, however most of them refused remedy or admission.
On this backdrop, Advocate Jasdeep Dhillon, for the deceased sufferer’s dad and mom, instructed the Courtroom at present that hospitals had been negligent in dealing with the case and there should be an enquiry. He knowledgeable that the sufferer obtained pictures of rabies vaccine at Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, however when she was referred to different hospitals for remedy (of accidents, and so forth.), they declined to confess or deal with her. Amongst these hospitals had been Safdarjung Hospital, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and Woman Hardinge Hospital.
He additionally acknowledged that the canine that bit the sufferer had beforehand bitten 4 different folks within the space, however no remedial motion was taken by the authorities. In response to a Courtroom question on the reason for demise, he replied it was a case of acute viral put up canine chunk.
Some counsels, from the canine lovers’ aspect, tried to contest the reason for the sufferer’s demise, declaring that the put up mortem report was not conclusive, as with a purpose to affirm rabies, mind tissue needs to be analyzed. One of many counsels additionally claimed that the sufferer was consuming and consuming in her closing days, which was not potential if she had rabies.
Coming down strongly on the counsels, the bench prohibited any such arguments. “You are making an attempt to counsel her demise was as a consequence of pure causes?” exclaimed Justice Mehta. Later, each Justices Nath and Mehta stopped all counsels from commenting on Chavi’s case.
In addition to Dhillon, one other counsel who appeared for a canine chunk sufferer submitted that there isn’t any one to take accountability of a stray canine that bites repeatedly. He additional urged that since animals like buffaloes and so forth. are killed for human consumption, stray canine, that are violent per se, are liable to be killed.
Case Title: In Re : ‘Metropolis Hounded By Strays, Children Pay Value’, SMW(C) No. 5/2025 (and related instances)
