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.
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.
The Supreme Court strongly criticised arguments made on behalf of Sharmila Tagore against a uniform approach to managing stray dogs, calling them “completely removed from reality.” The Bench rejected examples like dogs living in hospital campuses and warned of serious public health risks, reiterating that stray dog management must follow ABC rules.
The Supreme Court questioned a plea on feeding stray dogs, asking, “Why don’t you feed them in your house?” The court stressed public safety while tagging the matter with a similar pending plea. New Delhi: Today, on July 15, the Supreme Court of India, during a hearing on a plea related to the feeding of […]
The Delhi High Court has turned its attention to the growing concern over stray dogs in the city, particularly after a heart-wrenching incident where an 18-month-old girl was mauled to death by a pack of stray dogs in the Tughlaq Lane area. The court’s intervention underscores the urgent need for effective management and control of […]
