A Delhi court recently took serious exception to Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre (SGACC) for not releasing ten pet dogs to their rightful owner despite repeated judicial orders [Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre vs. State & Anr.].
The Court directed that the dogs be handed over to their owner immediately and also cautioned that excuses and administrative delays cannot be allowed to affect the welfare of living and sentient beings.
It also directed the SGACC to file a detailed status report on the next date of hearing, giving a complete account of every animal taken into its custody, how many were returned, how many died, whether any were sold or transferred and why court orders were not followed.
The case concerned ten pet dogs belonging to one Vishal.
He approached the trial court after his dogs were taken away during police action in a criminal case. The dogs were later shifted to SGACC.
Vishal told the court that the dogs included different breeds and ages, ranging from older shih tzus to younger toy pomeranians and a poodle, all of whom had been raised by him as family pets.
According to him, the dogs were initially taken on allegations of cruelty, but no competent authority ever found him guilty of mistreatment. He claimed to possess full medical and vaccination records showing proper care. He also said that when the dogs were taken, one female dog had just delivered a puppy, which did not survive. The post-delivery bleeding, which was cited by authorities as a sign of cruelty, was medically normal, he contended.
The first release order came in August 2025. By then, however, the dogs had already been moved to the care centre.
The trial court directed that they be returned to Vishal after completing formalities, including preparation of a panchnama and taking photographs of each dog “from all angles,” so that there would be no dispute later about their identity.
Despite even this unusually thorough canine photo-shoot being ordered by the court, the dogs were not returned.
In December 2025, the trial court again directed their immediate release, but the order still remained on paper. Vishal told the court that he visited the centre several times with the investigating officer, only to be turned away each time on some pretext or the other.
When the matter reached the sessions court in revision, SGACC sought more time and said it could not even file a detailed status report as directed earlier.
It also told the court that the dogs were not in good health and that some of them might have died.
Vishal, on the other hand, alleged that the centre had no authority to investigate cruelty on its own, that no competent authority had ever found him guilty of cruelty, and that he now had information that two of his dogs had already been sold.
The sessions court was unsparing.
It said the SGACC had “miserably failed” to comply with the orders of August and December 2025, that its excuses were lame, and that its conduct showed intentional and deliberate non-compliance.
It held that keeping the dogs despite clear directions amounted to gross misuse of authority and that living and sentient beings could not be made to suffer because of evasive pleas or administrative delay.
The Court ordered that the dogs be released immediately to Vishal as there was no stay on the trial court’s orders. It further asked the SGACC to file a detailed report giving an account of every animal taken into its custody and their current status.
The revision petition will now come up again on January 22 when the court will examine this report and decide the case further.
Vishal was represented by advocates Mayank Sharma and Shakeel Ahmad.
SGACC was represented by advocates Varisha Sharma and Samiksha Singh Roha.
The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor SK Dubey.
[Read Order]