Stray Dogs Protect Orphan Children On Streets, Make One Feel Safe: Advocate Tells Supreme Court

In the Stray Dogs case, one of the intervenors today argued before the Supreme Court that stray dogs protect orphan childrens as their "last line of defence on streets", and hence, they must not be taken away. Instead of constructing shelters for dogs, authorities should endeavour to provide shelter to orphans, the lawyer suggested.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. The hearing will continue on January 20 at 2 PM.

Advocate Pavani Shukla, espousing the cause of orphan and vulnerable children, argued that stray dogs are homeless children's "last line of defence" on streets and must not be taken away. The same would amount to these children getting abandoned a second time, she said.

"These children are on streets and their only protectors are these street dogs. Rs.20,000 crores to be invested for shelters for dogs when we have more children on streets? The rights of children in homes cannot be more important than rights of children without one. Many media cases of these children being protected. This Court cannot remove their last line of defence. They would be orphaned again. Dogs provide safety, they can bark if someone is attacked. I have worked with a series of doctors. 5 diseases have already happened due to overcrowding of animals...CDC in US has notified certain diseases. In 1950, there were 2 recorded cases of rabies becoming droplet virus...by keeping them in one place, we would be allowing mutation. Some diseases can become drug-resistant. i am surprised that RWAs with lakhs and crores are asking for more money", Shukla urged.

Further, a counsel, appearing for Delhi's famous 80-year old "Dog Amma", suggested that a policy incentivising the adoption of Indie dogs may be considered. "Consider a policy for incentivising adoption of Indie dogs...Technology for tracking dogs...In Tamil Nadu, heat-sensing AI system has been implemented...Integrating density mapping, ABC scheduling, etc. will cut down infestations, dog bites. You can identify the source", he said.

To this, Justice Mehta responded sharply, saying, "Are you for real? A young counsel (Shukla) just now argued and showed us the statistics of orphaned children on the streets. We wish some of the lawyers had argued for the adoption of these children. Since 2011, when I was elevated, this is probably the longest arguments we have heard, and till date, no one has argued so long or so compassionately for a human being".

Advocate Anil Mishra appeared for singer Mohit Chauhan and prayed for modifications to the November 7 order. He suggested that the Court can give time to NGOs, etc. to take responsibility for stray dogs. "Spirit of ABC rules is compassionate management of dogs. The rules recognize stray dogs as community animals and feeders. Even my lords in another Civil Appeal had held that these rules are putting in place mechanism for preventing suffering of animals, especially canines. There are several judgments of Delhi HC. Even in a foreign jurisdiction, caregivers are recognised as someone who acts hand in hand with municipal authorities. Let organizations apply for taking responsibility of a dog", he said.

In this regard, Justice Mehta questioned if the organizations would also take responsibility of tortious damages on account of dog bite/attack incidents.

Advocate Divyadeep Chaturvedi (for an NGO) argued that institutional responsibility for stray dogs finds its way in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. He cited Section 11 to say that the legislative scheme differentiates based on the degree of association with animal. "Act does not preclude institutions from 'owner'...possession of custody being determinative factor...where there's voluntariness, one will be owner and responsible for behavior" he urged.

In response, Justice Mehta asked, "So provision is only limited to pain and cruelty towards animals? Whose responsibility is it when animal causes pain and cruelty?"

Advocate Varun Bala (arguing a petition for 7 mothers) contended that dog feeders are still feeding in societies and releasing of dogs is not helping the situation. Another counsel supported the Court's November 7 order, saying the Court has powers to issue directions under Articles 32 (for violation of Fundamental Rights) and 142 of the Constitution. He also claimed that there exists a legislative vacuum for the Court to intervene, as the existing laws have failed to tackle dog bites issue.

Advocate Divyam Dhyani submitted that there has to be a collaborative approach. He cited certain questions raised in the Lok Sabha and data provided in response. He also pointed to certain SOPs brought out by the West Bengal government.

Another counsel contended that the Animal Welfare Board of India's SOP (pursuant to the Court's November 7 order) has expanded the scope of the Court's order (for example, to religious places and tourist sites) and the Court must clarify as to what stands covered by its directions. It was further submitted that picked-up dogs would require some space to move around during the day and stakeholders should have access to the shelters. Also, it was argued that there should be provision for forensic audit, as more funds would now get deployed to tackle the issue.

Advocate Rayasha Kumar submitted that implementation of the Court's order would require thousands of crores. She raised arguments regarding the sourcing of such funds and doctrine of separation of powers, referring to Articles 266, 267 and 275 of the Constitution. "Roles of legislature and judiciary are separate", she urged.

Advocate Rajesh Gogna (for a dog lover) contended that when the Court passed the November 7 order, it did not have data before it regarding availability of ABC centres. Submitting that such centres are not adequately available, he urged the Court to seek affidavits from Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs on the same.

A report on other submissions led by certain senior counsels and a dog bite victim can be read here.

Case Title: In Re : 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 (and connected cases)