PAWS AND LAWS: SUPREME COURT’S SUO MOTO ON STREET DOGS

 

 PAWS AND LAWS: SUPREME COURT’S SUO MOTO ON STREET DOGS

Sidhant Malik

Advocate

Supreme Court of India

 

INTRODUCTION

On August 11, a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had directed that stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) be relocated in masse to shelters on the city’s outskirts. However, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai subsequently reassigned the matter to a three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath, with Justices Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, which on August 14 reserved its order on an interim plea seeking a stay on the earlier directive.

Concerns have also emerged that stray dogs were being rounded up in various localities even before the Supreme Court’s order was uploaded. It remains unclear whether the Chief Justice’s intervention was prompted by the strong public outcry or by the very nature of the order itself.

The August 11 ruling has triggered widespread outrage among animal lovers, experts and citizens, many of whom have questioned its rationale and pressed for alternative solutions. Politicians and public figures—including animal rights activist and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Trinamool Congress MP Sushmita Dev, actor John Abraham and comedian Vir Das—have openly criticised the move of the Supreme Court of India.

JUSTICE NOT SERVED- AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is audi alteram partem—“the Right to be heard.”

Animal welfare groups were reportedly not given a hearing, despite being directly concerned. This violates procedural fairness.

The principle was famously upheld in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court held that fairness in procedure is part of Article 21 (Right to Life).

For laypersons, the maxim means that imagine being punished without being allowed to explain your side. Because the Hon’ble Court did not hear the animal lovers, local residents, and the Animal Welfare Board of India, the principle of natural justice was violated.

ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA [AWBI]

According to AWBI, large-scale relocation or removal of street dogs is not only counterproductive but often exacerbates the problem. The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Module, 2025 explains that when dogs are taken away, the vacant territory attracts new, unvaccinated strays from neighbouring areas. Those that evade capture continue breeding, leading to rapid repopulation. The influx fuels more fights over territory and mating, heightening the risk of dog bites. In such unstable conditions, rabies transmission remains a serious threat.

The module further warns that removals usually capture friendlier, sterilised dogs first—leaving behind aggressive, unsterilised ones. This unintended selection alters the temperament of the street dog population, making it more volatile and harder to manage. Far from resolving the issue, displacement increases the likelihood of rabies outbreaks and man-dog conflict.

 

Adding to the controversy are remarks made in court itself. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, while commenting on the Animal Birth Control Rules, reportedly described them as “absurd.” The Rules mandate that a sterilised and vaccinated community dog must be returned to its original locality. “A rule which says that if you pick up a stray dog from one part [of the locality] to sterilise that dog and put him [back] at the same locality—that’s absolutely absurd; doesn’t make any sense at all,” Justice Pardiwala said. Further, Justice Pardiwala even posed a rhetorical question, asking whether dog lovers could return a child to their parents if the child were bitten by a rabid dog.”

WHAT DOES CENTRE TO SAY ON THIS ISSUE

Amid the ongoing ‘menace’ of stray dogs across India and the Supreme Court's controversial order to pick all of them up from Delhi-NCR streets, the Centre has said that the matter falls under the purview of the state governments along with local bodies.

The issue of stray dogs falls under the purview of State Governments, with Local Bodies mandated to manage related matters.

The new rules which align with the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) standards for the Capture–Neuter–Vaccinate–Release (CNVR) approach, states that local bodies are responsible for implementing sterilisation and vaccination programmes in collaboration with animal welfare organisations.

The sterilisation programme is an ongoing process being implemented by Urban Local Bodies. An advisory was issued by the Secretary (Animal Husbandry and Dairying) to all Chief Secretaries. 

The government provides financial assistance of up to ₹800 per dog and ₹600 per cat to SPCAs and local bodies.

Infrastructure support: A one-time grant of ₹2 crore is set aside for state-run veterinary hospitals to develop facilities such as surgical theatres, kennels, and recovery units for stray dogs and cats.

The AWBI is providing assistance for establishment of small animal shelter up to INR 15 lakh and INR 27 lakh for large animal to urban local bodies, Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animal and recognized animal welfare organisations.

IS THIS THE FIRST ACTION AGAINST STREET DOGS?

 

No. Prior to the August 11, 2025 decision in the Delhi stray-dog case, the Supreme Court of India had indeed issued rulings that explicitly barred the relocation or killing of community dogs. These earlier directions were grounded in compassion and emphasized humane treatment under the law. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai acknowledged this conflict in court, stating that he would examine the matter further, noting the tension between the new directive and past ruling.

A deeper dive reveals the legal backdrop:

Ø  In 2024, in the case Animal Welfare Board of India v People for Elimination of Stray Troubles, Supreme Court bench led by Justices Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol underscored that indiscriminate killings of stray dogs are impermissible. The Court recognized compassion toward animals as a constitutional value and affirmed that authorities must uphold it in any intervention.

Ø  Additionally, there were findings of divergence among High Courts: while the Kerala High Court aligned with the ABC Rules (prohibiting relocation or killing), other High Courts (such as those in Bombay, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh) had adopted a more permissive stance. The Supreme Court’s 2024 observations aimed to resolve these disparities and reinforce a uniform, humane standard.

 

CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY BACKDROP

Ø  Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – Right to life includes a healthy environment, balancing human and animal lives.

Ø  Article 48A of the Indian Constitution – Duty of the State to protect the environment, forests, and wildlife.

Ø  Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution – Fundamental duty of every citizen to show compassion to living creatures.

Ø  Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – The central law protecting animals from unnecessary suffering.

EVERY COIN HAS TWO SIDES

In Kerala, 2022, a 12-year-old boy named Nihal lost his life after a suspected rabid dog bite. The tragedy sparked violent protests and mass dog culls. Fear overwhelmed compassion.

In Noida, 2023, a toddler was mauled by a pack near his residential society, leading residents to demand mass removal of strays.

On the other hand, in Mumbai’s Worli area, a community-led sterilisation and feeding program turned aggressive packs into vaccinated, docile companions. Today, children walk past them without fear.

In Chennai, residents adopted their local sterilised dogs as “watchdogs,” feeding them and ensuring vaccination. Cases of bites dropped sharply, and thefts too—because the dogs became natural guardians of the neighbourhood.

PERSONAL VIEW

India is a land where even mythology reveres animals—dogs are companions of Lord Bhairava, a form of Shiva. The problem lies not in dogs but in ineffective implementation: Funds allocated for shelters risk being misused, given the high levels of corruption in India. At present, vaccination and sterilisation drives are not properly executed by the Authorities. Authorities may confine strays in restricted areas without providing adequate treatment A better solution lies in monthly vaccination camps, public education, and community participation. Stray dogs can co-exist safely within society without fear of rabies or attacks.

CONCLUSION

The stray dog issue in India is not merely about animals roaming our streets — it is a constitutional test of compassion, governance, and justice. Every dog removed without vaccination is not just an administrative lapse; it is an invitation to rabies, conflict, and chaos. Every rupee misused in the name of “shelters” is not simply corruption; it is a theft of life, both animal and human.

India cannot afford knee-jerk reactions that push problems under the rug. Relocation without vaccination is nothing but a recipe for disaster, one that history, science, and law have repeatedly warned against. The Supreme Court’s role is not just to interpret statutes, but to stand as the guardian of constitutional values — compassion, dignity, and fairness.

If mythology reveres dogs as companions of gods, and the Constitution recognises their right to exist with dignity, then our society cannot treat them as disposable nuisances. The answer lies not in cages and corners, but in sterilisation, vaccination, and community-driven responsibility.

 

I Stray dogs I Supreme Court of India I Laws I Sidhant Malik I Paws I Article I