Shreya Gupta
On August 14, 2025, a three-judge Supreme Court Bench heard interim pleas challenging the August 11 directions on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR. The Bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria. It has reserved its order regarding the requests to stay the mandate issued on August 11. This mandate required the removal of all stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR area to shelter homes.
The matter was moved from the earlier two-judge Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan after lawyers told the Chief Justice that the August 11 directions conflicted with prior Supreme Court orders on stray dogs. During the hearing, the bench repeatedly faulted governmental inaction and asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to state its position; it also stressed that those intervening in the matter would have to take responsibility and place evidence on record.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for the GNCTD) argued that a “loud, vocal minority” was ranged against a “silent, suffering majority,” referring to videos of people professing love for animals while eating meat. He pressed public-safety concerns, asserting that sterilisation does not stop rabies or prevent attacks, and cited figures of about 37 lakh dog bites annually (roughly 10,000 per day, as per an Economic Times report he relied on) and WHO statistics on rabies deaths. He added that nobody was advocating killing dogs, but said they should be separated from public spaces, even invoking an analogy that only a few snake species are poisonous, yet are not kept at home.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Project Kindness, countered that the controlling legal framework, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules must be followed. He said municipal authorities had failed for years to build shelters or run effective sterilisation, warned that mass removal would lead to de facto culling and disease in overcrowded shelters, and specifically asked the Court to stay directions 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the August 11 order that mandate picking up dogs and prohibit their return. He informed the bench that authorities had already started picking up dogs, despite the August 11 order being uploaded only the previous evening. Justice Vikram Nath inquired about this, and Sibal confirmed.
Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi said at least six prior orders had been overlooked; Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave said the order rested only on submissions from the SG and amicus without hearing animal-rights groups; Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi said it was based on anecdotal material and unauthenticated videos. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves submitted that sterilisation coupled with proper feeding reduces dog populations over time, while Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal flagged capacity constraints, saying Delhi-NCR may have around a million dogs against shelter space for roughly a thousand.
At one point, Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that several assertions being made were themselves “anecdotal” and pressed counsel for evidence. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra added that the Delhi Government had already filed an affidavit in related proceedings committing to comply with the ABC Rules.
Before concluding, the bench asked Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave (for MCD) to state the Corporation’s stand and reprimanded local authorities for failing to implement existing laws. It observed that the problem stems from non-implementation by civic bodies and remarked that all intervenors must also assume responsibility. The Court then reserved orders on the stay pleas; Bar & Bench reported that no stay was granted for now.
For context, the August 11 directions require Delhi, MCD and NDMC to immediately create dog shelters with staffing and CCTV and to begin rounding up stray dogs, starting with vulnerable localities, with an initial capacity target of 5,000 dogs within 6–8 weeks. Authorities must keep daily capture records, set up a helpline within a week so bite incidents lead to capture within four hours, ensure sterilisation and immunisation, and not release any captured stray back to the streets; the order also sought data on vaccine availability and warned of contempt for obstruction.
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria
Case Title: IN RE: CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE
Case Number: SMW(C) No. 5/2025