Public Suffering Due To Authorities' Failure To Implement SC Directions On Stray Dogs: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the public is suffering as government authorities are apparently not taking care to strictly implement the Supreme Court's directions concerning stray dogs.

Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observation while hearing a plea filed by one Aditya Vikram Bohra seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him under Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The provision penalizes the offense of mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering any animal useless.

The counsel appearing for Bohra said that the accused had only used a toy gun in order to save himself from the stray dog that since neither any killing nor any maiming nor any poisoning was done to the dog, no offence under Section 325 of BNS was made out.

As the counsel expressed anguish, the Court said:

“…..and rightly so that apparently the government authorities concerned are not taking care to strictly implement directions of the apex court in regard to the stray dogs, because of which public is suffering.”

Bohra's counsel further submitted that some individuals feed stray dogs and avoid the responsibility of maintaining them as pets, while the dogs continue to act as pets for those feeding them.

It was also submitted that the concerned stray dog continued to remain in the same locality despite no action by the police or municipal authorities.

As the Court issued notice in the plea, the Delhi Police, represented by APP Sanjeev Sabharwal, sought time to file a status report.

The Court directed the Delhi Police to file the status report at least one week before the next date of hearing and listed the matter for hearing on February 03, 2027.

For context, the Apex Court had directed that all jurisdictional High Courts, while undertaking the monitoring exercise, shall be fully empowered to take appropriate action including initiation of contempt proceedings against the erring officials responsible for non-compliance, inaction, or wilful disregard of judicial directions.

The Top Court had directed all High Courts to register a suo motu writ petition in the name of “In Re Compliance With The Directions Issued By Supreme Court…” for monitoring compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

Later, a division bench of the Delhi High Court initiated suo motu proceedings to monitor compliance with Supreme Court directions to remove dogs from the premises of educational institutions, hospitals, bus stands, railway stations, etc.