A Delhi court fined Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Rs 2 lakh for illegally taking pet dogs, transferring some to third parties, and defying court orders and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The order dismissed SGACC’s revision.
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on the Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre (SGACC) for unlawfully taking custody of pet dogs, transferring some to third parties without proper authority, and showing blatant disregard for court orders and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Additional Sessions Judge Surabhi Sharma Vats of Karkardooma Court issued this order while dismissing a revision petition by SGACC that challenged a previous directive to return the dogs to their owner, Vishal, who is implicated in an FIR at the Jagat Puri police station.
Describing the animal care centre’s actions as “vexatious” and warranting exemplary costs as a deterrent, the court ordered SGACC to pay the fine within three days into a government animal welfare fund designated for the National Livestock Mission.
In a detailed ruling, the Court remarked that SGACC had “resorted to the weaponisation of laws, exploiting the legal process for strategic advantage rather than for legitimate legal recourse.”
The court found that the centre had engineered complaints through a proxy complainant, creating artificial legal disputes that allowed it to unlawfully seize custody of the animals without any order or authorization from a competent authority.
It determined that the seizure and custody of the dogs did not comply with Sections 34 and 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, noting that no independent veterinary examination had taken place and no court order authorized SGACC to take custody of the animals.
The Court stated,
“It is observed and held that the entire action of the revisionist and custody of the animals in question is vitiated by procedural illegality, bias, conflict of interest, and a colourable exercise of power, with the tacit or active assistance of the police authorities,”
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Case| Not All Dogs Must Be Removed from Streets: Supreme Court Clarifies
It also criticized the “calculated silence” maintained by the centre, which delayed proceedings and caused unnecessary hold-ups. The court pointed out that SGACC had intentionally withheld reports, as their release could reveal “serious irregularities, illegalities, and gross negligence” in handling the animals.
Advocate Mayank Sharma, representing the dog owner, informed the court that the dogs were subjected to unauthorized medical procedures, with some being sold without the owner’s consent. He highlighted that four female dogs underwent sterilization procedures removing their ovaries without the owner’s permission or knowledge.
Earlier, on January 22, the Court had fined SGACC Rs 5,000 for failing to comply with its order to release all ten dogs. While the investigating officer stated that eight dogs were returned to their owner, Vishal’s counsel contested this, claiming that four of the returned dogs appeared mutilated and that two, a Maltese and a Poodle, had not been returned.
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
The Court has now taken a strong stance against the animal care centre, asserting that its actions undermined both statutory protections and judicial authority. Additionally, on January 13, the Court had criticized another animal shelter for not adhering to judicial orders concerning the return of ten dogs seized during a criminal investigation, emphasizing that animals are “living, sentient beings” and should not be treated as disposable property.
These comments were made while hearing a criminal revision petition challenging an August 11, 2025, order from a Judicial Magistrate First Class at Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara. This order had directed the release of custody of ten dogs seized in FIR No. 369/2025 at Jagat Puri police station in favor of the accused, referred to as respondent no. 2.
SGACC argued that the magistrate’s order contradicted the objectives and statutory framework of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as the animals were released to the accused himself. It was also noted that a subsequent order dated December 24, 2025, had directed SGACC to return all ten dogs within seven days with police assistance, but compliance faced practical difficulties.
Factual Backgrounds
The case involves ten pet dogs owned by Vishal. He sought the court’s intervention after his dogs were confiscated during a police operation related to a criminal case, subsequently being placed in SGACC’s care.
Vishal informed the court that the dogs belonged to different breeds and ages, including older Shih Tzus, younger Toy Pomeranians, and a Poodle, all of which he had raised as family pets. He argued that the dogs were initially taken based on allegations of cruelty, but he had never been found guilty by any competent authority.
Vishal maintained that he had complete medical and vaccination records demonstrating proper care. He also noted that one female dog had recently given birth to a puppy that did not survive, and that the post-delivery bleeding, cited by authorities as a sign of cruelty, was medically typical.
The first order for the dogs’ release was issued in August 2025; however, by that time, they had already been transferred to the care center. The trial court mandated their return after formal procedures, including creating a panchnama and photographing each dog “from all angles,” to avoid future identity disputes.
Despite the court’s detailed instructions, the dogs were not returned. In December 2025, the trial court reiterated the need for their immediate release, but the order remained unfulfilled. Vishal reported that each time he visited the center with the investigating officer, he was turned away under various pretenses.
Case Title: Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. State & Anr.
Read Attachment: