New Delhi, Oct 31 (UNI) The Supreme Court today firmly refused to allow Chief Secretaries of States and union Territories to appear virtually in the ongoing case concerning the management of stray dogs, directing that they must be present in person before the Court.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed strong displeasure over the repeated non-compliance with its directions, rejecting a request from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to exempt the Chief Secretaries from physical appearance.
“No, let them come physically. Unfortunately, the Court is wasting time here trying to deal with problems which should have been solved by the State Governments and the Municipal Corporations over the years,” remarked Justice Vikram Nath.
The Bench rebuked several States for “showing no respect” to the Court’s orders, adding, “Parliament frames rules, but no action is taken. We require them to file compliance affidavits saying they are sleeping over it! No respect for the order of the Court. Let them come; we will deal with them. They have to physically come and explain why compliance affidavits were not filed.”
During the hearing, Solicitor General Mehta informed the Bench that the compliance affidavits had since been filed. However, the Court observed that these appeared to have been submitted after the last hearing date, as only three affidavits had been on record then.
It may be recalled that on October 27, the Court had summoned the Chief Secretaries of all States and union Territories, except West Bengal and Telangana, for failing to file affidavits outlining steps taken to implement the Animal Birth Control Rules.
Only West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had submitted their compliance affidavits pursuant to the Court’s earlier directions dated August 22. The apex court has now directed the Chief Secretaries of the defaulting States and UTs to appear in person next Monday and explain the delay in compliance.
The Bench also noted that several defaulting States had not even sent representatives to the hearing despite clear notices being issued. Expressing deep dissatisfaction, Justice Nath remarked that the Court’s order was not only communicated to all States and UTs but also widely reported in the media.
