New Delhi: The Supreme Court today reserved its order on a high-stakes controversy over stray dog management in Delhi-NCR, a case that has gripped public attention across India, sparking emotional debates on safety, animal rights, and municipal responsibility.
The three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria heard marathon arguments before reserving its verdict on multiple petitions seeking a stay on the August 11 directions of a two-judge bench to remove stray dogs from all streets and relocate them to shelter homes.
The case originated on July 28 this year, when a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan took suo motu cognisance of a news report headlined “City hounded by strays and kids pay price”.
Concerned over the rising incidents of dog bites, particularly involving children, the bench on August 11 issued sweeping directions to the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and civic bodies of Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurugram.
The order mandated the immediate creation of dog shelters across Delhi with CCTV monitoring, starting with capacity for 5,000 dogs within 6–8 weeks, a continuous campaign to pick up stray dogs from vulnerable and peripheral areas, a prohibition on releasing any captured dog, daily logging of captures, the establishment of a 24/7 helpline for dog-bite complaints, and ensuring vaccination stock disclosure.
The bench warned that any obstruction by individuals or organisations in implementing the directions would be treated as contempt of court.
The order triggered an unprecedented reaction nationwide.
On one side, there was public support from residents and parents concerned about safety, citing rising dog-bite incidents and rabies deaths.
On the other side, animal welfare groups, rights activists and lawyers condemned the move, warning that it would lead to mass confinement, overcrowding in shelters, spread of diseases, and possible illegal culling, in violation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and earlier Supreme Court judgments that forbid indiscriminate capture and require sterilisation and vaccination as the primary method of population control.
The matter took a dramatic turn yesterday when it was reassigned to the current three-judge bench after several lawyers mentioned before the Chief Justice of India that the August 11 order conflicted with at least half a dozen previous Supreme Court rulings.
The reassignment effectively paused the execution of the August 11 order pending further judicial consideration.
In court today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, painted a grim picture of public health risks, citing media reports that 37 lakh dog bites occur in India annually, about 10,000 each day, and 20,000 people die every year from rabies, according to WHO estimates.
“Sterilisation does not stop rabies. Even if dogs are immunised, that will not stop them from mutilating children,” he said. Drawing a stark analogy, the SG remarked, “Only four or five species of snakes are poisonous, but we do not keep them at home. Nobody is saying kill dogs, but they must be separated to ensure children can play outside and go to school without fear.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for NGO Project Kindness, argued that the August 11 order was legally unsustainable.
“This is the first time I hear the Solicitor General say, don’t look at the legislation which occupies the field. The ABC Rules are part of Parliamentary legislation and must be complied with.
Where are the shelters? Where are the pounds? The MCD has failed to sterilise and vaccinate, causing dog numbers to rise.
Without infrastructure, dogs will be caged in inhumane conditions and will eventually be culled,” he warned, urging the Court to stay directions 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the August 11 order, which allow immediate pickup and detention of strays.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the August 11 order disregarded earlier Supreme Court rulings explicitly rejecting mass capture and mandating ABC compliance. He said at least six prior orders were ignored.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave noted that animal rights activists were not heard before the order was passed, and Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi contended that the directions were based on anecdotal reports and unauthenticated videos.
Colin Gonsalves stressed that sterilisation combined with feeding was the most effective way to bring dog populations down.
Krishnan Venugopal highlighted the logistical impossibility of accommodating over one million strays in Delhi-NCR in shelters with only 1,000 available spaces.
Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned the evidentiary basis of claims from both sides, calling many submissions “anecdotal.”
Justice Vikram Nath criticised civic inaction, stating, “This is happening because of the inaction of the Municipal Corporation. The government does nothing. The local authorities do nothing. Everyone who has come here to file intervention should take responsibility.”
The three-judge bench, after hearing extensive submissions, reserved its order, acknowledging the complexity of the issue, which sits at the intersection of public health, statutory animal welfare obligations, municipal governance, and societal sentiment.
The reassignment effectively paused the execution of the August 11 order pending further judicial consideration.
Concluding the proceedings, the Bench directed that there will be a stay on the August 11 order until the Court has an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive judicial review.
