SC Questions Early Removal Of Stray Dogs Before Order Became Public, Reserves order
The Supreme Court questions why stray dogs were removed in Delhi before its order was public, as it hears challenges to the directive mandating their relocation to shelters.
The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up local authorities over their handling of the stray dog crisis in Delhi-NCR and reserved its decision on petitions challenging its controversial August 11 order to round up all stray dogs and move them to shelters.
A three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N V Anjaria questioned why animal removal drives had begun in some areas before the earlier order was even made public. “Parliament frames rules and laws, but they are not implemented. Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. They should be here taking responsibility,” the bench remarked.
No Immediate Stay on August 11 Order
The top court, however, declined to grant an immediate stay on the August 11 directive issued by a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan. That order had instructed civic bodies to remove all strays from Delhi-NCR’s residential areas, detain them in shelters, and create new shelter infrastructure within eight weeks. Once relocated, the dogs were not to be released back into public spaces.
Public Outcry and Case Reassignment
The August 11 ruling, which was passed during a suo motu case over rising dog bite incidents and rabies cases in the capital, particularly among children, triggered a public outcry, with animal lovers and welfare groups taking to the streets in protest. Following the backlash, the Chief Justice of India reassigned the matter to the current three-judge bench.
Balancing Public Safety and Animal Rights
During Thursday’s hearing, the court acknowledged the competing concerns at play. “On one hand, humans are suffering, and on the other, the animal lovers are here,” it observed.
Representing the Delhi government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the debate was being driven by a “loud vocal minority” while a “silent suffering majority” endured the consequences. In a pointed remark, he added, “I have seen people posting videos of eating meat and then claiming to be animal lovers.”
Top Headlines
