SC to deliver verdict on please seeking suspension of mass dog capture order today

A three-judge bench led by justice Vikram Nath, and also comprising justices Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, will decide whether the order has to be suspended in toto, tweaked, or allowed to stand as it is

New Delhi

MCD sterilisation drive. (HT Archive)

The Supreme Court is set to deliver, on Friday, its ruling on pleas seeking suspension of the contentious August 8 order directing the mass capture and sheltering of stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR).

A three-judge bench led by justice Vikram Nath, and also comprising justices Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, will decide whether the order has to be suspended in toto, tweaked, or allowed to stand as it is.

Earlier on Thursday, a different bench had refused an urgent listing of the matter, as sought by an animal rights’ organisation. This bench declined to pass any direction, which meant that, for the time being, the August 8 order remained operative. Later in the day, however, it became clear that the judgment of the larger bench headed by justice Nath, already reserved on August 14, would be pronounced on Friday.

The August 8 order, passed by justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, required the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and civic agencies in Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram – later expanded in a written order to include Faridabad – to round up all stray dogs within eight weeks and keep them in dedicated shelters, with no re-release onto the streets. The authorities were also directed to establish shelters with capacity for at least 5,000 animals within eight weeks. A detailed written order, issued on August 11, reiterated those directions while also laying down welfare safeguards for dogs kept in shelters. But the sweeping measures quickly became contentious, drawing strong objections from animal welfare groups who warned of cruelty and statutory violations.

After criticism and fresh pleas complaining about inconsistencies with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, in a rare administrative step, withdrew the matter from the justice Pardiwala bench and reassigned the matter to the three-judge bench led by justice Nath. The larger bench heard the matter at length on August 14 before reserving orders.

During the hearing on that day, the larger bench criticised the Delhi government and civic bodies for failing to enforce the very regulatory framework they had created to manage stray dog populations. “You frame laws and rules but do not implement them,” observed the court, noting that both human safety and animal welfare were suffering as a result. It pressed the Delhi government to clarify whether it intended to comply with the statutory regime.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, cited “shocking” instances of child mutilation and fatal dog-bite injuries, arguing that immediate intervention was necessary to protect public safety. He maintained that while dogs must not be killed, they should be separated, sterilised and treated humanely, and urged the court to craft an effective solution to what he described as a growing public-health concern.

Countering this, senior advocates Kapil Sibal (appearing for NGO Project Kindness), Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sidharth Luthra and others representing animal welfare groups contended that the August 8 directions were unlawful and unworkable. They argued that the statutory framework mandates sterilisation and vaccination under the ABC Rules, followed by return to the same locality, not mass removal to shelters. A time-bound drive without adequate, inspected facilities, they warned, would inevitably result in cruelty. They also pointed to government data tabled in Parliament that showed no recent deaths in Delhi from dog bites, questioning the factual basis of the MCD’s measures.

Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, also appearing for the Delhi government, assured the bench that the administration would comply with whatever directions the court issued.

The August 11 written order had sought to incorporate animal-welfare safeguards, directing that dogs in shelters not be mistreated or starved, that overcrowding be avoided, vulnerable dogs be housed separately, and that timely veterinary care be provided. It also permitted adoption under strict conditions set by the Animal Welfare Board of India, warning that any re-release of adopted dogs into public spaces would invite “the strictest of action.”

The suo motu case was triggered by the death of a six-year-old girl from rabies following a dog bite, with the Pardiwala bench citing “disturbing patterns” of dog-bite incidents and local agencies’ inability to keep public spaces safe.