A Delhi court voiced grave concern over Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre for not returning ten pet dogs to their lawful owner, despite repeated judicial directions. The court ordered immediate restoration, stressing delays cannot override animal welfare and compliance.
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has expressed serious concern regarding the Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre (SGACC) for failing to return ten pet dogs to their rightful owner, despite multiple judicial directives.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Surabhi Sharma Vats of Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi directed the immediate return of the dogs to their owner and emphasized that excuses and administrative delays should not hinder the welfare of living beings.
Furthermore, the court instructed SGACC to submit a comprehensive status report at the next hearing, detailing every animal in its custody, how many were returned, how many died, whether any were sold or transferred, and the reasons for not complying with court orders.
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Case| Not All Dogs Must Be Removed from Streets: Supreme Court Clarifies
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.
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
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.
When the case reached the sessions court for revision, SGACC requested additional time and claimed it could not provide the detailed status report as previously ordered. It also stated the dogs were not in good health and that some might have died.
Conversely, Vishal claimed that the center lacked the authority to conduct its own investigations into cruelty, insisted that no official entity had ever found him guilty of such, and reported that he had learned two of his dogs had already been sold.
The sessions court was critical of SGACC, stating it had “miserably failed” to adhere to the orders issued in August and December 2025. The court dismissed SGACC’s excuses as weak and highlighted that their actions demonstrated intentional and deliberate non compliance.
It concluded that retaining the dogs contrary to clear court directions constituted gross misuse of authority, stressing that living beings should not suffer due to evasive arguments or bureaucratic delays. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate release of the dogs to Vishal, noting that there was no stay on the trial court’s orders. It additionally required SGACC to submit a comprehensive report detailing the status of every animal in its custody.
The ordered a comprehensive report on following points:
“i. Total number of animals/birds taken into custody from alleged accused persons till date.
ii. Case-wise and date-wise details of animals/birds received in custody.
iii. Number of animals/birds returned to their respective owners pursuant to Court orders.
iv. Number of animals/birds that died during custody and compensation, if any provided to the owners.
V. Date, cause of death, and supporting veterinary/postmortem records for each deceased animal/bird.
vi. Number of animals/birds sold, adopted, transferred, or otherwise disposed of while in custody.
vii. Identity and details of recipients for all animals/birds released or transferred.
viii. Current status (alive/deceased) and exact location of each animal/bird taken into custody.
ix. Post-release/fate monitoring undertaken to ensure welfare of animals/birds after release.
x. Detailed record-keeping mechanisms, identification protocols (tags/microchips), and veterinary supervision in place for all animals/birds in custody.
xi. Explanation for any non-compliance with judicial orders or delays in handover of animals/birds.”
The revision petition is scheduled for further examination on January 22, when the court will review this report and continue deliberations on the case.
Vishal was represented by advocates Mayank Sharma and Shakeel Ahmad, while SGACC was defended by advocates Varisha Sharma and Samiksha Singh Roha. The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor SK Dubey.
Case Title: Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre vs. State & Anr.
Read Attachment;
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
