ON JUNE 30, SIX YEAR OLD CHAVI SHARMA affectionately called ‘Bittu’ by her family, was attacked by a stray dog while walking to her aunt’s house in Pooth Kalan, Delhi. Around 4:45 pm, the dog lunged, tearing her skirt and inflicting deep bite wounds on her thigh, arm, knee, and hand.
Rushed to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital in Rohini, Chavi became one of nearly 100 patients treated in the emergency ward that day. Tragically, despite medical efforts, she succumbed to rabies twelve days later, just weeks after celebrating her sixth birthday on June 13. Her family, still haunted by her absence, clings to memories of her vibrant spirit, hoping to hear her voice return from play.
Born in a village near Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, Chavi lost her mother at birth. Bereft of women caregivers, Chavi and her two sisters were entrusted to relatives for upbringing. She found a loving home with her father’s elder brother in Delhi, where she was embraced by her adoptive parents, Satish Sharma, 47, and Manju Sharma, 45, and her brothers, Vishal, 24, and Mukesh, 19.
“Bittu was everybody’s favorite,” Vishal recalls, his voice breaking. “She had a way of connecting with everyone she met.”
A news report in the Times of India on Chavi’s death became the trigger for a suo motu cognizance by a Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, who on August 11, passed a sweeping order directing the removal of all stray dogs from the Delhi NCR region within thirty days. Animal rights activists have argued that the order overlooks the possibility of developing a nuanced street dog management policy in India, and was in violation of the Animal Birth Control Rules. Subsequently, upon referral to a three-judge bench, the Supreme Court has reserved order on the issue, even as Justice Pardiwala’s August 11 order was not stayed. Tomorrow, the three-judge bench is set to deliver its verdict - one that has an opportunity to settle an untidy jurisprudence on the management of stray dogs, and devising a procedural solution to hold municipal corporations accountable.
Interestingly, misinformation seems to have flowed both ways.
Animal rights activist and former union minister Maneka Gandhi have observed, while criticising the order of August 11, that the “child did not die because of a dog but due to ‘meningitis’ and the parents have confirmed it.”
The doctors who treated Chavi have something else to say.
A system on trial
On June 30, around 5 pm in the evening, the family got to know that a dog had bitten Chavi. The neighbours rescued her from the dog. There, then was a crowd gathered around her and took her to her house. The family then rushed to the Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, the nearest public hospital located 5.5 km from their house. Doctors in the emergency ward examined Chavi and prepared her to give Anti-rabies injections.
“They gave her injections on every wound except the hand and back of the arm to which Manish objected,” Vishal said. He recalled that the doctors said that she was in pain and giving injections there would pain her more. .
She was given next dates of vaccination on July 3, 7 and 28.
After taking jabs on July 3, her wounded arm swelled on July 5. The family hurried to Ambedkar Hospital where they were referred to Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital at Connaught Place (‘CP’). At Kalawati, they were informed that the hospital did not have have an Anti-rabies facility at all. Again, they were sent off to Lady Hardinge Hospital in CP and from there, again referred to RML Hospital. The medicines worked and swelling decreased.
“On July 21, her health deteriorated and on the next day she started having panic attacks which she never used to have”, Chavi’s aunt Manju said remembering the day. “She was terrified of light and became hyperactive”, Manju added.
“She started shouting and her voice changed within two days”, Satish Sharma recalled.
The family took her to Ambedkar Hospital where doctors confirmed her with rabies.
The family took her back home. On the night of July 24, Chavi's eyes rolled up, her lower body stiffened and she started convulsing. She was taken to Nav Jeevan Hospital, Pitampura and stayed there the whole night under doctors Gaurav Bansal and Shivendra Sharma’s observations.
“On the next day, July 25, Chavi died of rabies,” Bansal, “No hospital was ready to take the case because everybody knew she had rabies and it’s a communicable disease which has no treatment.”
In her death certificate, the cause of death is mentioned as - ‘Acute Viral Encephalomyelitis Post Dogbite, Rabies’, a serious inflammation of the brain and spinal cord caused by a viral infection.
In the middle: RWAs and resident dilemmas
The family holds the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) accountable for the lack of responsibility.
“We have complained so many times to the MCD but still the dogs have not moved away from here. The dog which bit my sister had eaten her own puppy the same morning,” Satish told The Leaflet, “This is the amount of rabid infected stray dogs we’re living with.”
Pooth Klan Resident’s Welfare Association’s (‘RWA’) member, Mehtab Solanki said that the MCD ward councillor had done nothing about the complaints. Notably, and disturbingly so, while the MCD ward councillor is Ritu Mukesh Solanki, it is her husband, Mukesh, who poses as the ward councillor. “[Mukesh] just knows how to pose for the videos and photos.” Mehtab Solani noted.
“The same dog had attacked others before and after Chavi, the MCD hasn’t taken any action yet. No politician came to us, only promises are in action” Satish Sharma said. The family’s anguish has since found resonance across Delhi, where news of Chavi’s death, carried by hashtags and prime-time debates, triggered protests and immediate interventions.
The Leaflet reached out to Pooth Klan’s MCD ward councillor Ritu Mukesh Solanki for a comment. She promptly directed The Leaflet to talk to her husband Mukesh instead.
Mukesh blamed the MCD Mayor, Raja Iqbal Singh and Commissioner, Ashwani Kumar for not giving them powers to work for people.
“We can only do complaints (ham to sirf complaints hi kar sakte hai),” he said, “They don’t care about the public even getting three to four lakh rupees as salaries and other facilities”.
Mukesh alleged that the MCD dispensaries across the city do not even have anti rabies injections available in their facilities.
“People have to go to Ambedkar Hospital for shots, and we all know how crowded the hospital is and long the queues are”.
Dr. Amar, Sharma's family doctor, claimed that almost 22 to 25 thousand Anti Rabies Injections are used in Delhi in a single day.
The other side: Animal rights and responsible feeding
Deepanshu Bathla, Program Manager of Ramagya Foundation opined that the Supreme Court’s August 11 decision, attempted a complicated, and naturally impractical solution on a simple issue, explaining that designated feeding areas to reduce aggression and conflicts was the only right way to deal with the issue. He explained that aggression often resulted from hunger or improper feeding.
“There are no available services for stray dogs; they don't get food or veterinary care, which makes them aggressive,” Bathla opined, ”We can collect area-wise volunteers to monitor and manage the situation locally if they want to take action.”
Anand K. Pandey, a veterinarian at Dowell Veterinary Clinic in Rohini explained that sterilisation could control the stray dog population, reduce fights and stress among dogs, which would, in turn, decrease aggression and the spread of rabies, “It is a key method used in India and other countries to manage dog populations humanely.”
“Why does anyone attack?” Pandey asked, “When there is stress, they have to fight for shelter, fight against cruelty, and not get food. This amplifies the aggression.”
“Goa, with its sterilisation drive and ABC centers have shown us the way to deal with such problems,” he added, “95 percent of the problems will be solved with sterilisation of dogs.”
If not [us], then who will feed these voiceless?”, asked Pooja Sachdeva, [identity] “but yes we have to be mindful of the fact that if there is an aggressive dog, we should report it to MCD”.
Chavi’s mother, Manju, remembers how Chavi used to wake up crying from nightmares. Chavi’s parents are torn between the loss of their child and frustration at a system that seems to be failing its youngest citizens. In Delhi NCR, her case is no anomaly. It is part of a surge that has pushed hospitals, policies, and communities to their limits.
Epidemic by the numbers
India’s dog bite crisis is not just an anecdote—it is an epidemiological fact. According to open records from the Press Information Bureau, the Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (‘IDSP’), and responses tabled in the Lok Sabha, 37,17,336 dog bite cases were reported in 2024 which is a 21.73 percent increase from 2023. Delhi’s contribution: 25,210 bites which is a 41 percent increase as compared to 2023. The month of January 2025 alone recorded 3200 cases.
Government records also show a grim disconnect: while 71 human rabies deaths were officially reported nationwide from 2022 to 2023, the Lancet’s recent review estimates that the real toll of 5726 (95 percent uncertainty interval 3967–7350) human rabies deaths occurring annually in India, where a third of global cases occur.
India has a significant population of stray or free-roaming dogs, estimated at 6 crore, which contributes to approximately 1.74 crore animal bite incidents annually.
A deadlock in the courts
Before the Supreme Court’s contentious order of August 11, the Court, had July 16 remarked, while hearing a Noida resident’s plea about harassment for feeding strays: “Why don’t you feed them in your own house?” The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta had flagged risks for morning walkers, schoolchildren, and two-wheeler riders, stressing laws must protect both people and animals.
In March 2025, the Allahabad High Court had directed authorities to safeguard residents and strays after a spate of severe attacks, urging sensitivity to all stakeholders. With dog bite cases rising and gaps in Animal Birth Control implementation widening, the urgency to find workable, balanced solutions is sharper than ever.
The top Court, instead of ordering mass removals or culling, could have directed stricter compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules—a 2023 legal framework that mandates stray dogs to be sterilized, vaccinated, and returned to their home territories, except in exceptional circumstances. The Court could have also reinforced the need for regulated feeding at designated spots (not streets or markets), holding that compassion must not come at the cost of public danger.
Interestingly, in a May 2024 order, a different Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol had made it clear that there could not be any indiscriminate killings of dogs in any circumstances. It had emphasised that compassion towards all living beings was a constitutional value, obligating all authorities to uphold it. The order had also acknowledged wide divergence between various High Court orders pertaining to whether municipal authorities had discretionary powers to kill stray dogs.
This order became a bone of crucial contention since it contrasted Justice Pardiwala’s August 11 directive. Eventually, this led to CJI Gavai sending the matter to a larger bench, which is now set to deliver its verdict tomorrow.
Where do we go from here?
Friday’s verdict is expected to bring some certainty in a jurisprudence marked by widely contrary views, not only among High Courts but even coordinate benches of the Supreme Court. It should also be considered as an opportunity to hold municipal corporations stringently accountable, much as Chavi’s death signifies.
On a more grounded level, tomorrow’s verdict is set to touch upon issues of very tangible consequence. As many commentators have noted already, effective implementation of the ABC rules through a system of accountability, provides a practical means to harmonise what has, clearly, emerged as a public safety concern, while also safeguarding the rights of nonhuman animals.
Chavi’s death, in many ways, is irreconcilable. The tragedy of the loss, incomprehensible for most of us. But before the Supreme Court, against all odds, there is now an opportunity for honest reckoning—and urgently, after too many years of neglect, a new compact founded in law, science, and above all, compassion for all life.