New Delhi (Rajeev Sharma): The Supreme Court has questioned why stray dogs were being taken off the streets in certain parts of Delhi even before its August 11 order directing their relocation to shelter homes was made public.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard multiple petitions challenging the two-judge bench order that had triggered widespread outrage among animal rights advocates. That earlier order, passed by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, had instructed authorities to remove stray dogs from residential neighbourhoods across the National Capital Region and house them in shelters.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, argued that the move was necessary due to the public health threat posed by uncontrolled stray populations. Citing WHO data, he noted that India reports roughly 20,000 rabies-related deaths annually and experiences nearly 37 lakh dog bites each year — averaging about 10,000 per day. “Even immunised dogs can attack and seriously injure children,” he said, adding that separation from residential areas was essential.
However, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the organisation Project Kindness, countered that the order contradicted statutory provisions under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules. He accused municipal authorities of long-standing negligence, pointing out the lack of adequate shelters and sterilisation programmes. “If dogs are packed into overcrowded shelters, they will harm each other, spread disease, and ultimately pose risks to humans as well,” Sibal warned, urging the court to suspend specific parts of the August 11 directive and release animals already seized.
Other senior lawyers, including Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddharth Dave, Aman Lekhi, Colin Gonsalves, and Krishnan Venugopal, argued that the order ignored multiple previous Supreme Court rulings that barred mass removal of dogs and mandated adherence to the ABC rules. They also challenged the factual basis of the August 11 decision, claiming it relied heavily on anecdotal accounts and unverified media material without giving animal welfare groups a chance to be heard.
Justice Mehta interjected at one point to note that many submissions from both sides were also anecdotal in nature, pressing for verifiable evidence. The bench criticised municipal inaction, with Justice Nath remarking that poor enforcement of sterilisation and vaccination programmes had fuelled the current situation.
The matter was transferred to the three-judge bench after lawyers approached the Chief Justice, pointing out conflicts between the August 11 ruling and prior orders of the court. The case originated from a suo motu action taken on July 28 following a news report about stray dog attacks in Delhi.
After hearing arguments, the bench reserved its order on whether to stay or modify the contentious directions.
