THE SUPREME COURT ON THURSDAY reserved its order on pleas challenging its August 11 directive to round up all stray dogs in the Delhi NCR region, keep them in designated shelters, and not release them back to the areas from where they were picked up.
A three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria heard senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sidharth Luthra, Colin Gonsalves, and Aman Lekhi, among others, before reserving orders. The Bench declined to stay the August 11 directive, which animal rights activists have criticised as being in conflict with an earlier order of May 2024.
Appearing for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted:
“In a democracy, there is one vocal majority and one who silently suffers. We have seen videos of people eating chicken and eggs and then claiming to be animal lovers. It is an issue to be resolved. Children are dying… sterilisation does not stop rabies… even if immunised.”
Citing WHO data, he said 305 deaths occur every year, most of them children under fifteen. “Nobody is an animal hater… Dogs do not have to be killed, but they have to be separated. Parents cannot send children out to play. Young girls are mutilated,” Mehta argued, noting that there was no effective solution in the existing Rules, and the Court must intervene given the clash between “a vocal minority view” and “the silent majority suffering.”
Countering Mehta, Sibal, appearing for the NGO ‘Project Kindness’, sought a stay on the order stating:
“This is the first time I hear the Solicitor General saying that laws are in place but need not be followed… The question is: who is to comply with them? Have municipal corporations-built shelter homes? Have the dogs been sterilised? Money has been siphoned off. No shelters are there. Such orders are suo motu. No notice. Now dogs are picked up. You say once sterilised, do not release them. This needs to be argued in depth.”
When Justice Nath asked him to identify the offending part of the order, Sibal referred to para 11(I) of the August 11 order saying, “It directs that all dogs be rounded up from NCR and put in shelters — these don’t exist. It directs creation in eight weeks… After sterilisation, where will they go? This will lead to culling. Dogs are kept together, food is thrown, and they attack each other. This cannot be permitted.”
Luthra cautioned that the order was prompting other States and High Courts to issue similar directions.
Singhvi noted that “all directions put the cart before the horse.” He noted, “Available infrastructure is a fraction of what’s needed to accommodate all dogs. Directions 1, 3, and 4 need to be stayed. Dog bites exist, but see parliamentary answers — there are zero rabies deaths in Delhi. Of course bites are bad, but you cannot create a horror situation like this.”
Lekhi and Gonsalves also opposed the August 11 order.
An advocate supporting the directive submitted:
“We have submitted medical reports of a person admitted to Breach Candy hospital… Humans are suffering. For every 24 individuals, there is one stray dog. All those here must take responsibility for attacks when they happen.”
At this Justice Nath observed that “Parliament frames rules and laws… but they are not implemented. On one hand, humans are suffering, and on the other, animal lovers are here. Have some responsibility. All those who have filed interventions must file affidavits and furnish evidence.”
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had directed municipal authorities in Delhi to start rounding up stray dogs, prioritising vulnerable localities, and set up shelters with at least 5,000-dog capacity within eight weeks.
The directive has triggered protests from animal rights activists.
On August 14, the matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, citing overlapping Supreme Court proceedings on stray dogs before different Benches. Following this, a three-judge bench was constituted to hear the issue.
