The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday made sharp observations during an extensive hearing on stray dog management, questioning why sustained legal advocacy was being advanced for stray dogs while the plight of orphaned children living on the streets received little attention.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a batch of petitions concerning the management of stray dogs and the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
Court reacts to proposal on incentivising dog adoption
The remarks came after Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, appearing for an 80-year-old dog lover popularly known as “Dog Amma” in Delhi, suggested a national policy to incentivise adoption of stray dogs.
“I represent an 80-year-old lady who lives on the street and takes care of nearly 200 dogs. A national adoption mission should be considered. Incentivisation could be something as simple as sterilisation and vaccination,” Gaggar submitted.
Responding strongly, Justice Sandeep Mehta said:
“Are you for real? A young counsel just showed us statistics of orphan children on the streets. Perhaps some lawyers could argue for adoption of those children. Since the year 2011, since I was elevated, these are the longest arguments I have heard. And till now, no one has argued so long for human beings.”
The Bench observed that while emotions were running high for animal welfare, similar intensity was absent when it came to human suffering.
Background of the case
The issue gained nationwide attention last year when a Bench headed by Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed municipal authorities in Delhi to round up stray dogs and place them in shelters. The order triggered protests from animal rights groups and was later modified by the present Bench to focus on vaccination, sterilisation and release in accordance with the ABC Rules.
On November 7, 2025, the Court passed interim directions requiring States and the National Highways Authority of India to remove stray animals from highways and institutional areas such as hospitals, schools and educational institutions. The Court also ordered fencing of such premises and directed that dogs removed from institutional areas should not be released back into the same locations.
Arguments supporting removal from institutional areas
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar defended the November 7 order, stating that it was legally justified and statutorily supported.
“No street dog has a right to be relocated to an institutional area. If a human being cannot stay there, an animal also cannot,” Datar argued, adding that institutional campuses cannot be treated as open public spaces.
He also flagged concerns about feral dogs in wildlife zones, stating that there are nearly 55,000 feral dogs in Ladakh, posing a threat to critically endangered species such as snow leopards.
Supporting this concern, the Bench observed that dogs can carry viruses like distemper, which may infect wild animals that prey on them, ultimately leading to their death.
Pushback from animal welfare advocates
Several senior advocates urged the Court to adopt a balanced and scientific approach. Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued that removal of dogs without proper implementation of ABC Rules would be ineffective and unscientific.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy described the issue as deeply emotional but was met with a pointed response from the Bench:
“Emotions seem to be only for the dogs,” the Court remarked.
She countered that the ABC Rules were the result of parliamentary deliberation and reflected constitutional values such as compassion for living creatures under Article 51A.
Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria contended that the stray dog population remained high due to poor implementation of the ABC programme, citing underfunding, lack of capacity and corruption as key reasons.
Court signals accountability
Expressing frustration over repetitive arguments, the Bench said the courtroom was turning into a “public platform rather than a court proceeding.”
The Court warned that for every dog bite and death, it may consider fixing heavy compensation on States for failing to make proper arrangements, and also indicated potential liability for dog feeders.
“You take them to your house, keep them. Why should they be allowed to roam around, biting and chasing? The effect of a dog bite is lifelong,” the Bench observed.
The Court stated that it would next take up the matter with the Union and State governments to ascertain whether any concrete plan of action exists to address the growing stray dog problem. The hearing is scheduled to continue on January 20 at 2 PM.
