The Supreme Court continued hearing a batch of petitions related to the stray dog issue. On Wednesday, the court examined competing claims from petitioners representing victims of dog attacks, animal welfare organisations, and authorities.
During the proceedings, the Bench reportedly questioned why arguments were focused solely on dogs, asking, “What about other animal lives? What about chickens and goats? Don’t they have lives?”
The matter has been under national scrutiny since last year, when a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed Delhi’s municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs. That order had triggered widespread protests from animal rights groups, who warned against indiscriminate removal of strays.
At one point on Wednesday, according to India Today, a petitioner sought to show a photograph of a 90-year-old man who was allegedly attacked by stray dogs and later succumbed to his injuries. The court declined to view the image, stating there was “no need” to do so. Counsel for victims argued that citizens were suffering and stressed that “human rights have to be protected.”
Referring to international practices, the counsel cited examples from Japan and the United States, where abandoned dogs are taken to shelters and euthanised if not adopted. He claimed this policy had effectively eliminated the stray dog problem in Japan, which, according to him, has not recorded a rabies-related death since 1950.
Animal rights activists countered these submissions, cautioning that removing stray dogs en masse could have unintended consequences. One activist argued that stray dogs play a role in urban ecosystems, asking what would happen to garbage management and the monkey population if dogs disappeared from the streets.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal emphasised that the globally accepted Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release (CSVR) model had significantly reduced stray dog populations in cities worldwide. He argued that in India, where waste management is poor and slums are widespread, removing stray dogs could worsen existing problems. He also warned that maintaining large shelters would impose a heavy financial burden on municipal bodies, many of which had failed to implement the Animal Birth Control Rules effectively.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves questioned the accuracy of dog bite statistics, claiming figures were inflated because each vaccine dose was counted as a separate case. He said data showed no rabies cases in 19 states since 2021 and cautioned that impounding stray dogs could have “drastic and irreversible consequences.”
The court noted that its earlier order had since been modified to apply only to institutional areas. “Why do we need stray dogs inside schools, hospitals, or courts?” the Bench observed, adding that their removal from such spaces should not be objectionable.
The Solicitor General submitted that the debate had focused excessively on dog lovers rather than animal welfare more broadly. He argued that decisions on allowing stray dogs in gated communities should be taken collectively by RWAs, warning that conflicts arise when a small minority opposes the will of the majority.
