New Delhi: The Supreme Court will pronounce its ruling on Friday on petitions challenging the August 8 order that directed civic authorities in Delhi and its adjoining districts to capture all stray dogs and confine them in shelters. The decision, reserved earlier this month, will determine whether the order stands, is modified, or suspended in full.
Background of the August 8 order
On August 8, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and civic agencies in Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram, and later Faridabad, to round up all stray dogs within eight weeks and place them in dedicated shelters. The order further directed the creation of shelters capable of housing at least 5,000 animals each, with strict welfare measures for the dogs.
The written order, issued on August 11, included safeguards such as prohibiting mistreatment, avoiding overcrowding, providing veterinary care, and permitting adoption under conditions set by the Animal Welfare Board of India.
A shift in handling of the case
The sweeping directions soon drew sharp criticism from animal welfare groups, who argued that the order violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. Responding to the growing concerns, Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai reallocated the case from the Pardiwala bench to a larger three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath, also comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria.
The larger bench heard the matter on August 14, during which it criticised the Delhi government and civic agencies for failing to implement existing rules on sterilisation and vaccination. The judges remarked, “You frame laws and rules but do not implement them,” pointing to the failure in managing both public safety and animal welfare.
Arguments for and against the order
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, highlighted serious dog-bite incidents, including fatalities, and pressed for urgent measures to protect citizens. He argued that while stray dogs should not be killed, they must be sterilised, vaccinated, and handled humanely in safe shelters.
On the other side, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Sidharth Luthra, appearing for animal welfare groups, contended that the order was unlawful and impractical. They stressed that the ABC Rules mandate sterilisation and vaccination, followed by the return of dogs to their original localities, not permanent confinement. They also questioned the factual basis of the order, pointing to government data tabled in Parliament that reported no recent deaths in Delhi from dog bites.
Trigger for the suo motu case
The case originated after the death of a six-year-old girl from rabies following a dog bite in Delhi, which prompted the Pardiwala bench to cite “disturbing patterns” of dog-bite cases and call for urgent intervention.
What lies ahead
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday will carry significant implications for both public health and animal rights advocacy in India. The outcome could redefine how urban India manages its stray-dog population, balancing safety concerns with humane treatment.