On 14th August, 2025, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria, reserved its order on pleas seeking a stay on the directions issued by a two-judge bench on August 11 for the removal of stray dogs from Delhi and Delhi NCR to shelter homes.

This shift came after a dramatic turn of events, when the suo motu stray dog case, previously before a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was reassigned to the present three-judge bench. The reassignment followed submissions by some Advocates to the Chief Justice of India that the August 11 directions conflicted with previous Supreme Court orders.

At the outset, Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Government of NCT of Delhi, remarked that "there was a loud vocal minority and a silent suffering majority." He criticised what he described as hypocrisy among some individuals: "I have seen people posting videos of eating meat and then claiming to be animal lovers."

Highlighting the public health concerns, Mehta stated: "Sterilisation does not stop rabies. Even if the dogs are immunised, that won't stop them from mutilating children." Citing an Economic Times report, he said that 37 lakh dog bites occur every year, an average of 10,000 per day and that WHO data shows about 20,000 rabies-related deaths annually.

"Only four or five species of snakes are poisonous. But we don't keep them at homes. Nobody is saying kill dogs. They need to be separated. Kids are not able to play outside or go to school," the SG added.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal countered the SG’s arguments, stressing the need to comply with existing legislation. "This is the first time I hear the Solicitor General say don't look at the legislation which occupies the field. There are the ABC rules. There is a Parliamentary legislation. That has to be complied with. How do you comply with? Who has to comply? The Municipal Corporation, what have they been doing over the years? Have they built shelter homes? Since they have not sterilised, dog numbers increased. Since they have no owners, the community is taking care of them. Where are the shelters? Where are the pounds? They will be culled."

Sibal urged the court to stay directions 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the August 11 order, warning that overcrowded shelters could lead to dogs attacking each other and spreading disease, potentially affecting humans. He also sought directions to release dogs already picked up by authorities.

Justice Vikram Nath questioned whether the authorities had begun picking up stray dogs before the August 11 order was even uploaded. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal confirmed they had.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the August 11 order ignored at least six prior Supreme Court rulings against mass removal of dogs and in favour of strict enforcement of the ABC Rules. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave noted that the August 11 order was based solely on the submissions of the Solicitor General and the amicus curiae, without hearing animal rights activists.

Senior Advocate Aman Lekhhi criticised reliance on anecdotal reports and unauthenticated videos. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves said sterilisation and proper feeding were key to controlling stray dog populations. Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal highlighted that Delhi-NCR has about one million stray dogs, but shelters can house only around 1,000.

Justice Sandeep Mehta interjected, noting that such figures were also "anecdotal" and asking, "Where is the evidence?"

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra pointed out that the Delhi Government had filed an affidavit stating its readiness to comply with the ABC Rules. The bench then questioned Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, representing the MCD, on its position.

Justice Vikram Nath observed: "What is your stand? This is happening because of the inaction of the Municipal Corporation. The Government does nothing. The local authorities do nothing." He added: "Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. They should be here taking responsibility. Everyone who has come here to file intervention should take responsibility.”

Case Details: In Re : 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5 of 2025