Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi urged the Supreme Court to involve scientific and technical experts in the stray dogs case, warning against purely legal decision-making. He cautioned that interim judicial orders without domain expertise could lead to irreversible consequences, as seen in the Aravalli Hills matter.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Friday strongly urged the Supreme Court of India to involve domain experts while dealing with the ongoing stray dogs matter. He cautioned the Court that well-meaning judicial intervention, if not supported by scientific and technical expertise, could lead to irreversible consequences, similar to what happened in the Court’s recent Aravalli Hills case.
Appearing for an animal rights organisation called All Creatures Great and Small, Singhvi made his submissions before a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria.
He warned the Bench that the stray dogs case should not end up like the Aravalli Hills ruling, which later had to be stayed and reconsidered after serious concerns were raised about the absence of subject-matter experts in the decision-making process.
Singhvi explained that while the Court often appoints an amicus curiae to assist it, this is not sufficient in cases involving complex policy, scientific and technical issues. According to him, amici curiae are primarily legal advisers and not experts in specialised fields such as animal behaviour, public health or urban planning.
Placing strong emphasis on this point, Singhvi told the Court,
“The obligation of the Court to enforce rights is in the absence of legislation. Your Lordships will be building a new edifice if you enter into that territory. While our amicus is great, the concept of amici are basically law advisers. They are not domain experts. Your Lordships must have domain experts along with the amicus. In the recent Aravalli judgment, the reconsideration was because that committee had 90% bureaucrats – generalists, not domain experts. Reconsideration was done because the domain experts had to come in. It will improve the quality of Your Lordships’ orders,”
Singhvi submitted.
His arguments were made during the Court’s suo motu proceedings in the stray dogs case, which drew nationwide attention last year. The case gained prominence after an earlier Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed the Delhi government and municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs from all localities.
That order triggered widespread protests from animal rights groups across the country and was later modified by the present Bench.
Following the modification, the Court shifted its focus to vaccination, sterilisation and release of dogs in line with the Animal Birth Control Rules. Over time, the scope of the case expanded further.
In November 2025, as an interim measure, the Supreme Court directed all States and the National Highways Authority of India to remove stray animals from highways across the country.
The Court also ordered fencing of government and private educational and health institutions within eight weeks to prevent stray dog bites. It further directed that dogs picked up from such institutional areas should not be released back into the same premises.
Against this background, Singhvi urged the Court to pause and reconsider its overall approach. He argued that the legal framework governing stray dogs is already comprehensive and that judicial intervention is limited to filling gaps left by the legislature, not entering areas that lawmakers have consciously regulated.
Singhvi reiterated that courts are constitutionally required to enforce rights only in the absence of legislation. Where Parliament and delegated authorities have already laid down detailed rules, courts must exercise restraint.
Drawing a clear parallel with the Aravalli Hills case, Singhvi reminded the Bench that the Supreme Court itself had stayed its earlier judgment in that matter after concerns were raised about the lack of domain experts in the committee appointed by the Court. He cautioned that a similar error should not be repeated in the stray dogs case.
He also issued a strong warning about the nature of interim orders, saying they often become final in practice and are extremely difficult to reverse.
Referring specifically to the Court’s interim directions dated November 7 on stray animals, Singhvi argued that orders involving public expenditure, infrastructure creation and physical relocation have long-term consequences.
In this context, he told the Court,
“Willy-nilly, Your Lordships have passed an order. And it is more final than final can be. The trappings of finality are there if substantial issues are decided. The expense also is a finality. One cannot have initiation of expense and then reverse it. Even if Your Lordships agree with me, the order by its very nature is irreversible,”
he said.
Several other senior advocates also addressed the Court during the hearing. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao questioned whether the earlier interim directions passed by the Court were proportionate to the problem. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat highlighted the failure of States to properly implement the Animal Birth Control Rules.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan suggested institutional solutions such as digital dashboards and portable sterilisation units to improve monitoring and implementation.
Senior Advocate Pragyan Pradip Sharma proposed identifying aggressive dogs through scientific and objective methods, while Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina stressed that sterilisation, rather than removal, is the only sustainable long-term solution.
The Bench, however, remained cautious about relying on international comparisons and underlined the unique scale and complexity of the Indian situation.
The judges observed that solutions suitable for other countries may not be easily transferable to India, given its population size, urban conditions and administrative challenges.
The Supreme Court will continue hearing the matter on January 13.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs
