
A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the top court's August 11 order directing the removal of all stray dogs from public spaces in Delhi NCR and their relocation to shelters, contending that the move will cause large-scale cruelty to animals, is practically impossible to implement, and will not solve the problem of rabies deaths.
The plea will be heard today by the newly constituted three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria along with the suo motu proceedings of the Court that ordered the removal of stray dogs.
The petitioner has sought directions to follow the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 instead of the blanket removal plan.
According to the plea, Delhi-NCR does not have the capacity to shelter an estimated 3–10 lakh stray dogs, and that the existing facilities lack basic necessities, leading to the risk of neglect, cruelty and death for the captured animals.
The August 11 order will directly violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the constitutional mandate under Article 21 read with the duties in Articles 48A and 51A(g), the petitioner has said.
The plea terms the August 11 order “practically non-implementable” and warns that the removal of all stray dogs would not be a permanent solution to rabies, since vacated areas would simply be occupied by dogs from surrounding regions.
According to the petitioner, the ideal solution would be mass sterilisation and immunisation on a large scale, in line with the Animal Birth Control Rules, rather than wholesale removal.
Further, as per the petition, the August 11 order conflicts with earlier Supreme Court rulings, including Swati Sudhirchandra Chatterjee & Ors. v. Vijay Shankarrao Talewar & Ors. and Animal Welfare Board of India & Anr. v. People For Elimination Of Stray Troubles & Ors., which emphasised sterilisation and humane management over removal.
The plea has asked the top court to direct the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to comply with the provisions of the animal welfare laws and the earlier precedents arguing that the current directive risks setting back decades of animal birth control work.