The Supreme Court is hearing the case concerning stray dogs in India. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria is hearing the matter.
The matter gained national attention last year after a Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs, drawing protests from animal rights groups.
That order was later modified by the present three-judge bench. It mandated vaccination and release of sterilized dogs instead of permanent sheltering.
During the hearing on December 7, the Court flagged the increasing number of dog bite incidents in the country and called out the municipal authorities and other local bodies for their failure to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules.
During the hearing on January 8, the Court said that a dog can always smell people who are afraid of them and will attack when it senses that fear.
Track this page for live updates from the hearing today.
Hearing starts
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar begins his submissions.
Arvind Datar: My submission is that the 7th November order is fully justified and is statutorily supported. Secondly there is no need for any expert committee. Thirdly there is a batch of petitions challenging the ABC rules. The ABC rules are ultra vires more than 60 central and state laws. The last submission is the serious matter of feral dogs in wildlife areas. We had filed a WP in this court and pointed out that there are 9 critically endangered species in Ladakh, Arunachal, and Rajasthan. There are 55,000 feral dogs in Ladakh, and very few snow leopards are left.
Arvind Datar: The bone of contention is whether the dogs should be put back in the institutional areas or not. We keep referring to street dogs. But what is a ‘street’?
Arvind Datar points towards the definition of streets in ABC rules.
Arvind Datar: We are only concerned here about open space to which the public have access to. Whether institutional areas are open spaces where the public has access. The public have a right of passage and repassage on the street. Anything beyond that is trespass. Your lordships are justified in saying that the dogs should not be put back and I will say why.
Arvind Datar: As far as public institutions are concerned, people have access, for a particular purpose, I can’t go and stay there. And if a human being can’t stay there, an animal also can’t. No street dog has a right to relocated to that place because he had no right to be there at the first place. It will result in animal trespass.
Arvind Datar: The validity of the rules face a major difficulty. They have used the terms but have not defined it. In the ABC rules many terms are not defined. There is no definition of street dogs. It refers to classification of animals, it only covers dogs. One classification of dogs is pet animals. Two will cover non-pet animals i.e., street dogs, community owned Indian dogs and abandoned pedigree dogs. They have not been defined. They are homeless is the broad category. There non pet animals are those who are living on streets or on a gated campus.
Arvind Datar: The fact that a street dog lives in a gated campus still continues to be a street dog. Rule 7 doesn’t mean that a street dog living in a gated campus acquires a right to be in that gated campus forever.
Court: Suppose there is an RWA in a gated campus and 90% don’t desire dogs. But for the desire of 5% people they should continue there. What can be the solution to that?
Arvind Datar: All people are taking advantage of a gated campus. It is still a street dog. It just happens to be in a gated campus. What is the right of a street dog to remain in a gated campus?
Arvind Datar: The premise within a hospital, railway station etc cannot be treated as an open space. The word access means only for the purpose of ingress and egress. I can go to the hospital, get my work done and come back.
Arvind Datar: Therefore the order dated 7.11.2025 should be extended to airports. The impression is that once a street dog is placed in an area like that it gets some kind of special protection. The court should clear this. This needs to extends to public parks and courts too.
Court: Yes for courts, when a lawyer was bitten in Gujarat, and when the municipal corporation people went to capture the dogs, they were thrashed. By lawyers! By these so called dog lovers.
Arvind Datar: ABC rules is only for birth control. Even if that is achieved the danger of attack by dogs is not addressed by the ABC rules. ABC rules will not apply to feral dogs.
Court: These dogs, they carry a certain virus. If they attack animals, the tigers which attack these dogs and eat, the tiger is bound to be infected by distemper and it eventually dies. Read about Florida too. There is not a single endemic species left in Florida because of this.
Arvind Datar: If a dog is seemed to be attacking an endangered wildlife species it should be killed by the forest warden.
Arvind Datar ends his submissions.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh: It should not be looked at a dog vs human issue but look at it like an animal vs human issue. There are 50k people dead due to snake bites last year, there are monkey bites etc too. Dogs are important for rodent control too. So your lordships have to balance the ecosystem.
Vikas Singh: Dog is not a keystone animal. It is not essential to the ecosystem. But their role in the ecosystem has to be appreciated.
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand begins her submissions.
Pinky Anand: I am advocating that animal and human conflict should not be seen as a conflict and a coexistence. I can’t close my eyes to the violence. The country’s philosophy, the NEP, UGC etc say that humans should peacefully exist with animals, animals should be treated with mercy.
Pinky Anand: If you take away dogs and they are not replaced back, more ferocious dogs will surface. When malaria was eradicated, dengue came back. The first recommendation is the adherence to ABC rules. Removal of dogs is ineffective as per the new AWBI rules. Removal of dogs from institutional premises is not scientific. And finally the rules that point out the obligations of the local authorities. The local authorities can collaborate with municipal authorities. This is mandatory under rule 10. Only 76 ABC centres have project recognition certificate.
Pinky Anand: Mandatory nodal officers should be there.
Court: Who should be made responsible when a 9 year old child is killed by dogs who are fed by a particular organisation? Should the organisation not be made liable for damages?
Pinky Anand: These incidents will happen. The way to control is not to take any one, two or ten incidents. Pet abandonment is another problem that your lordships can take care of.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy begins her submissions.
Menaka Guruswamy: These deeply contentious and emotional issues pertaining to stray dogs and the conflict …
Court: Emotions seem to be only for the dogs.
Menaka Guruswamy: I am emotionally attached to human beings. It seems very elitist to make these arguments pertaining to one species. I recognise the issues that are before my lords. My lordships are confronted with a situation that the parliament has been confronted with since 1950. The ABC rules are a result of parliament applying its mind.
Menaka Guruswamy points to parliamentary debates of 1957.
Court: Our request to all the lawyers is to allow us to take to task the union, the state authorities and other bodies to put what happened in 1957 into effect. Allow us to pass an order. We need to spend half a day with the States and Union. To see whether they have a plan of action or not. The problem has multiples a thousand times. We just want implementation of statutory provision. Allow us to do that. Allow us to work. Allow us to proceed further. The same things are coming again and again. This has become a public platform rather than a court proceeding. For every dog bite, for every death, we will be likely fixing heavy compensation for states for not making requisite arrangements. And also liability to dog feeders. You take them to your house, keep them, why should they be allowed to roam around, biting, chasing? The effect of a dog bite is lifelong.
Menaka Guruswamy: Killing won’t dimish the numbers, sterilisation will. If the regulators did their job better, we would not be living in the catastrophe we are in now. Money should be given to the organisations working. The program centres are underutilising the funds that are set up.
Menaka Guruswamy: The ABC rules are not just about birth control. The legislature realises that article 51 which says we must have compassion for all living creatures. That is the society we want to be. Why do we oppose capital punishment? Because we believe that as a society it dehumanises us. When we are talking about removing species, we are dehumanising ourselves. We cannot be in short supply of compassion.
Menaka Guruswamy: There is no answer there which allows for cruelty and culling.
Menaka Guruswamy ends her submissions.
Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria begins his submissions.
Percival Billimoria: It is nobody’s case that dogs should be on the streets. Dogs are on the streets because ABC has not been conducted in an effective manner.
Percival Billimoria: The intensive implementation of birth control program is the only scientific solution to over population of dogs. ABC has not worked for 3 reasons. Under funded, under capacity, and corruption.
Court: Tell us something new Mr. Billimoria. This has already been argued.
Percival Billimoria: I am setting up a road map to solve the problem. The first problem is there is no census.
Court: All this has been argued. Geo tagging, dashboard, tell us something new.
Percival Billimoria: A sterilisation capacity should be prescribed for each state. There are various scientific studies where the population of stray dogs has come down at 40%
Court: How have you arrived at that figure without there being a census by the way? Totally unrealistic arguments.
Percival Billimoria: Census has been done by scientists only in limited areas.
Percival Billimoria (reads from a judgement): Newspaper reports do not constitute evidence.
Court: You mean to argue that this petition should not have been registered?
Percival Billimoria: Cognisance is fine. My lords cannot only depend on newspaper reports. There are media reports that club facts with opinions. They by itself create an echo chamber. It’s like the algorithm. It will throw out only the things you want to believe. The more consensual approach is that society as a whole has to look at this and come up with a scientific way.
A lady who is a bite victim addresses the Court: While I agree that proper implementation of ABC will reduce dog aggression and population. I was mauled by a community dog. I wanted to understand what made the dog bite me without any provocation. This dog was subjected to prolonged cruelty. Kicking, stoning etc. it was defensive aggression in response to fear. I suffered because of the action of somebody else. What manifests aggression in a community dog. Cruelty towards an otherwise friendly dog activates fear. Fear activates defensive aggression.
Counsel: The existing rules are insufficient to solve the situation. This Court has power to issue orders to solve a dangerous situation under article 142 and 32. There is a clear vacuum. If the existing rules do not solve the problem of dog bites there is clearly a vacuum.
Another counsel addresses the Court.
Counsel: The order presupposes that there are sufficient number of animal shelters across the country. There should be a budgetary allocation for animal shelters.
Counsel appears for singer Mohit Chauhan
Counsel: I fully base my arguments on Mr. Gonsalves’s arguments. The spirit of ABC rules is compassionate management of dogs. In foreign jurisdictions, care givers and dog feeders are recognised to be hand in hand with authorities. I just want recognition for individual feeders. Give us responsibility.
Court: So the responsibility will also extend to damages in case of dog bites? Tortious damages for deaths etc.
Another counsel: Lordships have said we can adopt the dogs but we don’t have the wherewithal to do that. Reimbursement should be possible for us (dog feeders).
Another counsel makes her submissions.
Counsel: When a street dog is sleeping beside a small girl in a railway station, she will not be raped. Dogs also protect poor societies and RWAs. I feel comfortable as a woman to walk in Delhi with dogs who will bark when I am attacked.
Counsel: When a dog falls sick in a shelter, the viruses that mutate out of them are drug resistant. I have been feeling bad when RWAs are asking for more money to build shelters for dogs. Children need to be removed from streets first. Not dogs. Children need shelters.
Counsel: I represent an 80 year old lady who lives on the street. She takes care of 200 dogs. Known as dog Amma in Delhi. A policy for adoptions should be considered. Incentivisations. There are many counsel here who have 8-10 dogs at home who are Indie dogs. A national adoption mission may be implemented. Incentivisation could be something as simple as sterilisation and vaccination.
Justice Sandeep Mehta: Are you for real? A young counsel just showed us statistics of orphan children on the streets. Perhaps some lawyers could argue for adoption of those children. Since the year 2011, since I was elevated, these are the longest arguments I have heard. And till now no one has argued so long for human beings.
Another counsel addresses the Court.
Counsel: I represent 7 mothers living in a gated society. We are supporting arguments made by Mr. Datar.
Hearing ends.
Court: List for further hearing on January 20 at 2pm.