Stray Dogs Case: PETA, Animal Welfare Groups Urge Supreme Court To Permit Release Of Dogs At Place Of Capture

In the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court today commented on the municipal authorities' failure to tackle threat of stray dogs. It further voiced concern that dogs can smell fear and attack someone who is afraid or has been bitten before.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. The hearing will continue tomorrow, for which Justice Mehta has asked all parties to come prepared after reading a report published by a news portal on December 29 titled "On the roof of the world, feral dogs hunt down Ladakh's rare species".

The Court is considering applications seeking modification of the order passed in November last year, as per which strays found in the premises of public institutions, bus stations, schools, hospitals, campuses etc., must be captured and should not be released at the same location after vaccination/sterilisation.

Yesterday, the matter was heard extensively, with the bench primarily examining the issue of stray dogs in institutional premises. It was questioned whether spaces such as courts, schools and hospitals should have canine presence at all. "Should people suffer because of the authorities' failure to comply with the ABC Rules?" the Court asked. A detailed report on the hearing can be read here.

Today, at the outset, Amicus & Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal apprised the Court that 4 states which remained to file their affidavits had done the needful after yesterday' hearing, taking the number of states/UTs which had filed their responses to 16. He was given time to file a revised note.

Dogs v. Cats v. Rodents: Do canines help control rodent menace?

Continuing his submissions from yesterday, Senior Advocate CU Singh pointed out that 4 States have objected to the Standard Operating Procedure formulated by the Animal Welfare Board (pursuant to the Court's November order). He further contended that India, especially Delhi, also has a monkey and rodents menace and presence of canines in any area maintains a natural balance. "What happens when there's abrupt removal of canines - rodent population shoot up. They are disease carriers. Canines maintain balance" he said.

Justice Mehta however questioned if there was a correlation between the dogs and rodent population. In lighter vein, he also said that cats, which bear enmity with rodents, can be promoted to tackle rodent menace. That way, stray dogs will not be required. The judge also underlined that the Court's November order has not directed removal of "every dog" from the streets. Rather, it has necessitated that the dogs be treated as per ABC Rules.

Subsequently, when CU Singh prayed for a more "modulated" order, pressing that re-release of stray dogs in areas from where they are picked up, after sterilization and vaccination, has proved efficacious, Justice Mehta quipped,

"Tell us how many dogs each hospital should have? Roaming around in the corridors, in the wards, near the patient's bed?" In response, CU Singh clarified that he was not trying to confront the bench. He said that the November 7 order was well-intended, but had unintended consequences.

The senior counsel further highlighted that if large number of stray dogs are put in congested environments like shelters, the problem can get exacerbated due to spread of diseases. "The fact that States have violated rules or orders should not result in jettison of the Rules", he added.

Dogs can smell fear and attack someone who is afraid: Justice Nath

A counsel representing an intervenor (Lok Abhiyan organization member) argued that the ABC Rules were not meant to protect dogs, but rather, to decelerate their population. He underlined a case where a dog attacked different people (including 7-yr old child and elderly women) on 4 occasions within a span of days, because it was taken away by authorities but later released in the same area.

"After first aggressive bite has been demonstrated, should a dog be released?" he questioned. He prayed that at the minimum, feeding in public areas must be stopped. Protection for residential complexes, like educational institutions, was also sought.

The counsel further emphasized that the State is not the "owner" of stray dogs and has limited duty. He also pointed to risks posed by feeding areas being far part, while stray dogs are known to be territorial. "It has been argued that dogs are territorial. Every 200m, dog's territory changes. And feeding area is after 500m and does not get feed in his zone, he will try to reach other area and cross zones. There will be conflict. Not having sufficient food in his zone are put at risk."

While hearing him, Justice Nath orally commented that a dog can smell fear and attack someone it finds to be afraid. Dogs are also prone to attack someone who has been bitten before, the judge added. When someone on the Bar's side shook head in disagreement, Justice Nath said, "don't shake your head, we are speaking from personal experience. Your pet also bites you [because of similar logic]". Later, the judge also orally commented that the municipal authorities "have done nothing".

Cost burden, lack of infrastructure & training for vets: Expert highlights practical issues

Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal, appearing for an expert on animal rights, gave comprehensive suggestions to tackle the situation. He highlighted that up till now, there was no "will" to implement the statutory rules. However, with budgetary allocation towards infrastructural capacity building, use of CSR Funds, training to veterinarians, etc., the situation can be handled. The senior counsel also claimed that the AWB's SOP is contrary to the ABC Rules.

"At present, only 66 ABC Centres have been accredited. Cost estimate [of the proposed course of action] can go upto Rs.26,800 crores. One would have to construct 91,800 new shelters. There's no budgetary allocation for implementation of Rules. If one has Animal Birth Control Centre in each district, it would cost Rs.1600 crores. 5 Ministries in the Union should be involved..." Venugopal submitted.

He highlighted that there is a training centre in Lucknow, which can be asked to train vets, etc. in 15-day courses if stray dogs are to be sterilized and vaccinated on a large scale. It was also contended that random untrained people are being authorized to capture dogs, which can lead to killing.

Senior Advocate Vinay Navare also contended that the real issue is of non-implementation of ABC Rules. With regard to budgetary allocation, he beseeched the bench to consider that March 31 is the deadline. Lauding the Lucknow model, he prayed that the same may be implemented in other states.

Shelters/centres required to be constructed before capturing dogs: Intervenors

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, like Venugopal, argued that adequate shelters/centres to keep dogs proposed to be captured does not exist. He underlined Rule 11(6) of the ABC Rules, which provides that animals should be captured as per housing capacity of centres. "Last census took place in 2009. There were 5.6 lakh dogs in Delhi alone. Where does one keep them if they are captured?", Mehta asked.

Praying for earlier directions of the Court to be kept in abeyance, it was also contended that the Union government does not have accurate statistics about dog bites and has sought data from states. Mehta further informed that the University Grants Commission has written a letter to DG of Health Services suggesting animal welfare societies for higher educational institutions.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan added that the SOP framed by the AWB comprises 5 steps, the last of which is capturing of dogs. Firstly, there should be identification of the dogs (a census), then identification of institutions, nodal officers, etc. He claimed that the exercise should have taken place long time ago, but there has been complete non-compliance by the states/UTs.

Notably, Gopal S also expressed reservations about the Supreme Court's order requiring a pre-deposit by dog lovers and NGOs seeking to intervene in the case. Asking the Court to revisit the direction, he said that there's a feeling amongst people regarding a "commercial barrier" to approaching the Court. Justice Nath, unconvinced, said if the condition had not been imposed, the hearing of the matter would have been required to be held in a "pandal".

Micro-chipping, geo-tagging of stray dogs a working solution: Intervenors

Senior Advocate Nakul Diwan, for an animal welfare group member, backed the suggestion for constitution of an Expert Committee. He suggested a 'Trap, Neuter and Release' model, emphasizing that it is important for dogs to be released back in the same area from where they are picked up.

Besides the above, he pointed to micro-chipping of dogs as an inexpensive solution, which has apparently started in Bangalore. It was said that these chips can help track which dogs have been sterilized and vaccinated, as well as those which have bitten someone before.

When Justice Mehta asked if micro-chipping for pets, that is mandatory, is happening as of today, Diwan replied in the negative. "But should it happen? Yes", he added. He further said that an Expert Committee, including State participation, can look into this aspect.

Long confinement of stray dogs in small spaces may amount to cruelty: PETA

Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan, for PETA, India, referred to Rule 11(19) of ABC Rules to aver that dogs must be released back in same area from where they are picked up. "Experts can suggest where re-release can be ruled out", he added. The senior counsel further adopted the the above-mentioned submissions regarding rodent menace suppression by canines, lack of infrastructure, micro-chipping and pre-deposit condition for dog lovers and NGOs.

In addition, he submitted that the norm for detention of stray dogs is 4 days. As such, any animal confined for larger amount of time in a small space may amount to cruelty. "Directions for capturing dogs may be staggered until a local monitoring committee is satisfied that there are sufficient infrastructure arrangements for recovery of dogs", he prayed.

Furthermore, the senior counsel mentioned 3 orders of the Court in matters involving animals, including 1 where an Expert Committee was constituted and most recommendations accepted. On this, Justice Mehta said that the other case pertained to an extinct animal and ruled out any analogy.

Earlier Court directions for non-release of stray dogs contrary to Rules: Intervenors

Akin to arguments made yesterday by some senior counsels, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra today submitted that some of the Court's directions in its November order are contrary to the ABC Rules. He said that on one hand, the directions are contrary to the Rules, and on the other, the Court has stated that the Rules have to be followed.

The senior counsel further argued that certain expert bodies are contemplated under statutory law, like the Central Monitoring and Coordinating Committee, and their role may be looked into before "tinkering" with the Rules. In context of Justice Mehta's remark yesterday that "another Lalita Kumari [order ] may be required" in the case, it was further questioned whether the Court's directions should override the Rules when there is no existing legislative vacuum.

Other suggestions for intervening period

Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy (for organization-Neighborhood Woof) informed about a model implemented on "war-footing" at IIT, Delhi, involving micro-chipping, which statedly resulted in good results and virtually eliminated pack aggression and dog bite incidents without relocating dogs or putting them in permanent shelters.

On the Court insisting on specific suggestions, she said that isolated kennels and transport vehicles are required for infected dogs, so they can be separated from uninfected animals. She suggested that the IIT, Delhi model can be asked to be implemented in some institutions to see if it works. She also prayed for incinerators to dispose of carcasses of infected dogs, as none exist. For an accurate analysis, it was further suggested that pet bite incidents and stray dog bite incidents should be treated separately.

A counsel who appeared for 8 students from Delhi University's Law Faculty also told the Court about certain steps taken by the students at personal expense. He told that out of 49 dogs identified in the campus, the students got 28 vaccinated and sterilized, and got them released back in the campus. The other dogs will similarly be vaccinated and sterilized, he said.

Pointing to municipal authorities' failure, he informed that despite orders of the Delhi High Court, there's a cattle-hazard in streets and there are only 5 government-owned shelters for sick/injured dogs in the country (with capacity of 100 dogs per shelter). "In the interregnum, institutions can be asked to setup animal law cells, get dogs vaccinated at own expense, and bring back dogs. If administration is tasked, there can be immediate relief", he said.

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order