The Supreme Court on Tuesday lamented that many lawyers argued on behalf of dog lovers in the case relating to stray dogs but nobody was arguing or putting forth the views on behalf of human beings..A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria also told a counsel appearing for a dog lover on why they were not batting for adoption of orphaned children on streets but were instead limiting themselves to adoption of stray dogs.This was after the Senior Counsel Vaibhav Gaggar, representing an 80-year-old dog lover, suggested incentivising adoption of stray dogs. "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 - incentivisation. 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," Gaggar argued."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 (as a judge), these are the longest arguments I have heard. And till now no one has argued so long for human beings," Justice Sandeep Mehta retorted..These are the longest arguments I have heard. And till now no one has argued so long for human beings.Supreme Court.Background.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 triggered widespread protests by animal rights groups and was later modified by the present Bench. The modified directions shifted the focus to vaccination, sterilisation and release of dogs in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules.Since then, the Court has expanded the scope of the case.On November 7, 2025, as an interim measure, the Court directed States and the National Highways Authority of India to remove stray animals from highways and institutional areas like hospitals, schools and educational institutions across the country. It also ordered fencing of government and private educational and health institutions within eight weeks to prevent stray dog bites, and directed that dogs picked up from such institutional areas should not be released back into the same premises.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..Arguments today.During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar said that the November 7, 2025 order of the apex court to remove stray animals from institutional areas and campuses across the country and not release them back into those areas was justified."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," he said.He also highlighted the dangers posed by feral dogs in many areas."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 55000 feral dogs in Ladakh, and very few snow leopards are left," he submitted..He said that the bone of contention is whether the dogs should be put back in the institutional areas or not. In this regard, he contended that a stray/ street dog living in the premises/ campus of an institution or gated society does not have any right to continue there. "We keep referring to street dogs. But what is a ‘street’? 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 in institutional areas and I will say why. 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," Datar contended.Specifically on Animal Birth Control Rules (ABC Rules), Datar said that many of the terms used in the same are undefined."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. Non-pet animals are those who are living on streets or on a gated campus. 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," Datar argued."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?" the Court asked. "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? 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," Datar maintained.Therefore, he said that the top court's order of November 7, 2025 should be applied to airports and court campuses also."Therefore, the order dated November 7 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 extend to public parks and courts too," Datar stated."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," the Bench said in concurrence..Datar further sought to highlight that the ABC Rules do not address the danger of dog attacks."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," he said."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," the Bench stated."If a dog is seemed to be attacking an endangered wildlife species it should be killed by the forest warden," Datar said concluding his arguments..When a lawyer was bitten by a dog in Gujarat, and when the municipal corporation people went to capture the dogs, they were thrashed. By lawyers! By these so called dog loversSupreme Court.Senior Advocate Vikas Singh called for a balanced approach in dealing with the problem."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. Dog is not a keystone animal. It is not essential to the ecosystem. But their role in the ecosystem has to be appreciated," he said..Senior Advocate Pinky Anand said that removal of dogs as per November 7, 2025 order would be ineffective."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. 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 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," she contended..Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy said that the case involves deeply emotional issues."These deeply contentious and emotional issues pertaining to stray dogs and the conflict … " she said."Emotions seem to be only for the dogs," the Court said. "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, Guruswamy highlighted the parliamentary debates of 1957. The Court then said that it will take up time with the Central and State governments to ascertain whether any plan of action has been put in place to deal with stray dogs"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," the Bench said.Guruswamy said that culling of stray dogs will not solve the problem."Killing won’t diminish 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. 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. There is no answer there which allows for cruelty and culling," she stated..Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria said that the number of stray dogs are high because ABC Rules have not been implemented."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. 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. 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 percent," he argued."How have you arrived at that figure without there being a census by the way? Totally unrealistic arguments," the Bench said. "Census has been done by scientists only in limited areas," Billimoria replied..The hearing will continue on January 20 at 2 pm. .[Read Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
