The Supreme Court will deliver its long-awaited order on the nationwide stray dogs issue on August 22. The case has drawn sharp debate over public safety, animal rights, and municipal responsibilities.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reserved its order on petitions challenging its earlier ruling of August 11 that directed all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to be rounded up and shifted permanently to dog shelters.
On August 22, a special three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria is expected to pronounce its decision on whether to stay this controversial order.
Earlier, a two-judge bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had on August 11 directed municipal authorities in Delhi-NCR to start removing stray dogs from all areas “at the earliest” and relocate them to shelters.
The order also asked for the immediate construction of shelters with capacity for at least 5,000 dogs, banned the re-release of sterilised dogs, and made vaccination, deworming, food, and medical facilities compulsory.
The Court had also ordered a 24×7 helpline to report dog bites, capture of offending dogs within four hours, CCTV monitoring of shelters, and monthly data publication on rabies vaccinations. It further said that any obstruction in carrying out these measures would amount to contempt of court.
This sweeping order was passed suo motu after the Court took note of reports of rising dog bite cases in Delhi, including over 25,000 cases in 2024 and more than 3,000 cases in January 2025 alone.
The judges observed that sterilisation drives had failed over two decades and that urgent intervention was required, especially to protect children, elderly persons, visually impaired citizens, and those living on the streets.
The decision triggered protests across the country from animal rights activists and NGOs, who argued that the directions were impractical, inhumane, and could lead to mass culling of dogs.
On August 14, the matter came before the new three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath. The bench heard long arguments from both sides and reserved its order, without granting an immediate stay on the earlier directions.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, strongly supported the August 11 order. He said,
“In a democracy, there is one is vocal majority and one who silently suffers. We have seen videos of people eating chicken egg etc and then claiming to be animal lovers. It is an issue to be resolved. Children are dying…Sterilisation does not stop rabies…even if immunised…”
He added,
“WHO data shows 305 deaths a year. Most of children are under age group of 15. Nobody is a animal hater…Dogs do not have to be killed…they have to be separated. Parents cannot send children out to play. Young girls are mutilated.”
The Solicitor General stressed that existing laws had not worked effectively and the Court must intervene, saying,
“Court has to intervene.. this is vocal minority view vs silent majority suffering view.”
However, several senior lawyers representing NGOs opposed the order. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for NGO Project Kindness, requested a stay and argued,
“This is first time I hear SG saying that laws are in place but it need not be followed…Question is to who is to comply with it. Question is has the municipal corporation built shelter homes…have the dogs been sterilised? Money has been siphoned off. No shelters are there. Such orders are suo motu. No notice. Now dogs are picked up. You say once sterilised, do not leave them. This need to be argued in depth.”
Justice Nath intervened and asked,
“Show us the part of the order which is offending to you. We cannot spend the whole day on this.”
Sibal replied,
“Please see para 11(I) directing that all dogs be picked up, rounded up from NCR and put to dog shelters/pounds. These don’t exist. It has been directed to create the same in 8 weeks…after being sterilised, where will they go? All authorities directed to pick up dogs…this direction has to be stayed. What will happen? They will be culled…dogs are kept together…food is thrown and then they attack each other…This cannot be permitted.”
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra also raised concern, saying that the August 11 order was already influencing other states and High Courts to adopt similar measures.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the directions were unworkable and based on assumptions, stating,
“With the best of intentions, all directions put the cart before the horse. All directions presuppose issues…available infrastructure is less than fractional available to accommodate all the dogs. Directions 1, 3 and 4 need to be stayed. SG Mehta did preemptive prejudice. Dog bites exist…but see the parliamentary answers. There are zero Rabies deaths in Delhi… Of course bites are bad.. but you cannot create a horror situation like this.”
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave also said,
“Nobody from NGOs etc were able to place any record. Take that material from us.”
Senior Advocates Aman Lekhi and Colin Gonsalves too opposed the relocation order strongly.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Lawyer Slaps Dog Lover Outside Supreme Court: Watch Viral Video Here
On the other hand, an advocate in support of the order presented a different view. He said,
“We have submitted medical reports of a person who is admitted in Breach Candy hospital…humans are suffering. For every 24 individuals, there is one stray dog. All those who are here must take culpability of attacks as and when they happen…”
Summing up the arguments, Justice Nath remarked,
“Parliament frames rules and laws…but not implemented. On one hand, humans are suffering and on the other hand, the animal lovers are here. Have some responsibility…all those who have filed interventions have to file affidavits and furnish evidence. All of you.”
The Court will now pronounce its order on August 22 on whether to stay or modify the earlier ruling.
Background
Justice JB Pardiwala, who was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2022, has been on several important constitutional benches, including those deciding on issues of equality and reservation.
Justice R Mahadevan, on the other hand, was recently elevated from the Madras High Court and is still relatively new in the apex court.
Their bench attracted attention after passing two unusual directions—one effectively restraining a sitting High Court judge from discharging judicial work in criminal cases, and another halting action against a company facing allegations of environmental violations.
These directions were considered extraordinary because they touched upon areas usually avoided by benches to preserve judicial balance. Directly curtailing the powers of a High Court judge was seen as unprecedented, while restraining the government from enforcing environmental law raised questions of judicial propriety.
The controversy also brought back memories of earlier debates on the allocation of cases in the Supreme Court. Roster management has often been described as the “master of the roster” function of the CJI.
In 2018, four senior judges of the Supreme Court held a historic press conference expressing concern that sensitive cases were being selectively assigned to certain benches. Since then, roster allocation has remained a delicate issue tied directly to the independence and credibility of the judiciary.
Against this backdrop, CJI Gavai’s intervention is seen as a preventive measure to ensure uniformity, avoid perceptions of overreach, and maintain institutional discipline at the highest level of the judiciary.
CASE TITLE:
IN RE: CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE
SMW(C) No. 5/2025
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs
