The Supreme Court questioned why lawyers were advocating adoption of stray dogs while ignoring orphaned children living on the streets. The Court stressed that compassion must extend equally to human beings and warned against one-sided arguments in the stray dog case.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly questioned why several lawyers were passionately arguing for stray dogs, while no one appeared to be effectively presenting the concerns of human beings affected by dog attacks and safety issues. The Court clearly conveyed that compassion for animals cannot come at the cost of human life, dignity and public safety.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria made these observations while hearing a batch of matters relating to stray dogs and their management across the country. The Bench expressed concern that the proceedings had become heavily one-sided, with prolonged arguments focused on animal welfare, while the suffering of ordinary citizens was largely ignored.
ALSO READ: Dogs That Bite Twice to Face Life Imprisonment: Uttar Pradesh Govt’s Order on Stray Dogs
The issue arose when Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar suggested that incentivising adoption of stray dogs could be a solution. Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar submitted,
“I represent an 80 year old lady who lives on the street. She takes care of 200 dogs. Known as dog Amma in Delhi. A policy for adoptions should be considered – incentivisation. There are many counsel here who have 8-10 dogs at home who are Indie dogs. A national adoption mission may be implemented. Incentivisation could be something as simple as sterilisation and vaccination,”
Reacting sharply, Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned the priorities being placed before the Court. Justice Sandeep Mehta said,
“Are you for real? A young counsel just showed us statistics of orphan children on the streets. Perhaps some lawyers could argue for adoption of those children. Since the year 2011 since I was elevated (as a judge), these are the longest arguments I have heard. And till now no one has argued so long for human beings,”
The Court further underlined its concern and observed,
“These are the longest arguments I have heard. And till now no one has argued so long for human beings.”
The stray dog issue had gained nationwide attention last year when a Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs.
That order led to widespread protests by animal rights groups and was later modified by the present Bench, which shifted focus to vaccination, sterilisation and release of dogs in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules.
On November 7, 2025, the Supreme Court passed an interim order directing States and the National Highways Authority of India to remove stray animals from highways and sensitive institutional areas such as hospitals, schools and educational institutions.
The Court also ordered fencing of government and private educational and health institutions within eight weeks to prevent dog bites, and clarified that dogs removed from such premises should not be released back into the same areas.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar supported the November 7 directions. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar submitted,
“My submission is that the 7th November order is fully justified and is statutorily supported. Secondly there is no need for any expert committee. Thirdly there is a batch of petitions challenging the ABC rules. The ABC rules are ultra vires more than 60 central and state laws,”
Highlighting dangers posed by feral dogs, Datar told the Court,
“The last submission is the serious matter of feral dogs in wildlife areas. We had filed a WP in this court and pointed out that there are 9 critically endangered species in Ladakh, Arunachal, and Rajasthan. There are 55000 feral dogs in Ladakh, and very few snow leopards are left,”
ALSO READ: After Supreme Court Orders Stray Dog Removal, PETA Says “Jailing Dogs Never Worked”
Explaining why dogs should not be relocated back into institutional areas, Datar argued,
“We keep referring to street dogs. But what is a ‘street’? We are only concerned here about open space to which the public have access. Whether institutional areas are open spaces where the public has access. The public have a right of passage and repassage on the street. Anything beyond that is trespass. Your lordships are justified in saying that the dogs should not be put back in institutional areas… It will result in animal trespass,”
Raising a practical concern, the Bench asked,
“Suppose there is an RWA in a gated campus and 90% don’t desire dogs. But for the desire of 5% people they should continue there. What can be the solution to that?”
Supporting the same reasoning, Datar maintained,
“All people are taking advantage of a gated campus. It is still a street dog. It just happens to be in a gated campus. What is the right of a street dog to remain in a gated campus? The premise within a hospital, railway station etc cannot be treated as an open space. The word access means only for the purpose of ingress and egress. I can go to the hospital, get my work done and come back,”
He further urged that the November 7 order should apply to courts, airports and similar sensitive areas. Datar stated,
“Therefore, the order dated November 7 should be extended to airports. The impression is that once a street dog is placed in an area like that it gets some kind of special protection. The court should clear this. This needs to extend to public parks and courts too,”
Agreeing with the concern, the Bench recalled an incident and said,
“Yes for courts, when a lawyer was bitten in Gujarat, and when the municipal corporation people went to capture the dogs, they were thrashed. By lawyers! By these so called dog lovers,”
Pointing to ecological risks, the Bench observed,
“These dogs, they carry a certain virus. If they attack animals, the tigers which attack these dogs and eat, the tiger is bound to be infected by distemper and it eventually dies. Read about Florida too. There is not a single endemic species left in Florida because of this,”
Concluding his submissions, Datar said,
“If a dog is seemed to be attacking an endangered wildlife species it should be killed by the forest warden,”
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh then called for a balanced approach. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted,
“It should not be looked at a dog vs human issue but look at it like an animal vs human issue. There are 50k people dead due to snake bites last year, there are monkey bites etc too. Dogs are important for rodent control too. So your lordships have to balance the ecosystem. Dog is not a keystone animal. It is not essential to the ecosystem. But their role in the ecosystem has to be appreciated,”
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand opposed removal of dogs. Senior Advocate Pinky Anand contended,
“I am advocating that animal and human conflict should not be seen as a conflict and a coexistence. I can’t close my eyes to the violence… Removal of dogs from institutional premises is not scientific… Only 76 ABC centres have project recognition certificate,”
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy described the matter as emotionally charged. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy said,
“These deeply contentious and emotional issues pertaining to stray dogs and the conflict … “
Responding instantly, the Court said,
“Emotions seem to be only for the dogs,”
Explaining its approach going forward, the Bench stated,
“Our request to all the lawyers is to allow us to take to task the Union, the State authorities and other bodies… This has become a public platform rather than a court proceeding… The effect of a dog bite is lifelong,”
Opposing culling, Guruswamy further stated,
“Killing won’t diminish the numbers, sterilisation will… We cannot be in short supply of compassion. There is no answer there which allows for cruelty and culling,”
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Case| Not All Dogs Must Be Removed from Streets: Supreme Court Clarifies
Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria blamed poor implementation of the ABC Rules. Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria argued,
“It is nobody’s case that dogs should be on the streets… ABC has not worked for 3 reasons. Under funded, under capacity and corruption… the population of stray dogs has come down at 40 percent,”
Questioning the claim, the Bench asked,
“How have you arrived at that figure without there being a census by the way? Totally unrealistic arguments,”
Replying, Billimoria said,
“Census has been done by scientists only in limited areas,”
The Supreme Court listed the matter for further hearing on January 20 at 2 pm, stating that it would closely examine whether the Union and State governments have a concrete and effective action plan to deal with the growing stray dog problem while ensuring human safety and lawful animal welfare.
Read More Reports On Stray Dog
