NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on a batch of pleas seeking a stay on the directions issued by a two-judge bench on 11 August, which directed the rounding up and shifting of all stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR region to shelter homes. The court noted that “on one hand, humans are suffering and on the other hand, the animal lovers are here.”
A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Vikram Nath and comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, reserved its decision after hearing detailed arguments and submissions from the petitioners, the Centre, the Delhi government, and others.
The top court observed, “The government did nothing. The local authorities do nothing. Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. They should be here taking responsibility. Everyone who has come here to file intervention should take responsibility.”
On Thursday, the court did not stay the 11 August order, in which a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had directed the Delhi-NCR authorities to start removing stray dogs from all localities within eight weeks and house them in dedicated dog shelters to be set up by civic authorities.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government, presented data to the court stating that around 37 lakh dog bites occur every year, which roughly amounts to an average of about 10,000 dog bites daily. He also submitted that, according to World Health Organisation (WHO) statistics, 20,000 rabies deaths happen annually.
Mehta highlighted that children were unable to play outside due to the stray dog menace. On the issue of immunisation, he submitted that even if dogs are immunised, “that won’t stop them from mutilating children.” He stressed that “nobody is saying kill dogs. They need to be separated for the safety of people.”
The court, during the hearing, also slammed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and observed that the situation was due to its inaction.
“Parliament frames rules and laws, but these are 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,” the bench said, reserving its order.
It directed all intervenors who had questioned the 11 August order to file an affidavit.
When the court took up the matter for hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, along with other lawyers appearing for petitioner NGOs and others, sought a stay on the 11 August order, saying there were not enough shelter homes to house stray dogs.
Sibal argued that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules were already in place in this regard and that there was a Parliamentary legislation on the issue.
Questioning the 11 August order, he said, “What the MCD did so far? What have they been doing over the years? Have they built shelter homes? Since they have not sterilised, dog numbers increased. Since they have no owners, the community is taking care of them.”
He further remarked, “Where are the shelters? Where are the pounds? They will be culled. So the 11 August order should be stayed on an interim basis.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing one of the petitioners, supported Sibal’s contentions and said the apex court’s order ignored previous directions against en masse picking up of stray dogs.
On Wednesday evening, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud constituted a three-judge bench to hear the matter on Thursday, after being informed by an organisation that past orders passed by the court on community/stray dogs had been different and sometimes conflicting in nature.
The decision to hear the case was taken after a mentioning in the morning by lawyer Nanita Sharma before a bench led by the CJI. She submitted that two benches of the apex court had earlier passed different orders on the issue and that the court should hear the matter to clarify the confusion.
After hearing this, the CJI said, “I will look into it.” He assured the lawyer that the court would examine the ongoing issue relating to community/stray dogs, as she claimed there were different and conflicting orders from the apex court on the subject.
Sharma, appearing for the organisation The Conference for Human Rights (India), told the court that there was an earlier judgment of a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol which held that there could not be indiscriminate killing of canines and that “compassion for all living beings has to be there.”
She also pointed out that recently, a bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala had ordered the relocation of stray dogs in Delhi to dog shelters. Another order was passed by the Justice Maheshwari-led bench in May 2024, whereby petitions relating to the stray dog issue were relegated to the respective High Courts, she contended.
After hearing these submissions, the apex court said it would look into the matter, with the CJI adding that another bench had recently passed an order in relation to stray dogs.
