Delhi Court Slaps ₹2 Lakh Cost on Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre for Illegal Custody of Pet Dogs

Additional Sessions Judge Surabhi Sharma Vats of Karkardooma Court passed the order while dismissing a revision petition filed by SGACC challenging an earlier direction to release the dogs to their owner, Vishal, who is an accused in an FIR registered at Jagat Puri police station.

Calling the conduct of the animal care centre “vexatious” and warranting exemplary costs as a deterrent, the court directed SGACC to deposit the amount within three days in a government animal welfare fund to be utilised for the National Livestock Mission.

In a detailed order dated January 23, the Court observed that SGACC had “resorted to the weaponisation of laws, exploiting the legal process for strategic advantage rather than for legitimate legal recourse.”

It held that the centre had orchestrated and engineered complaints through a proxy complainant, thereby creating artificial legal disputes that enabled it to unlawfully take custody of the animals without any order or authorisation from a competent authority.

The Court noted that the seizure and custody of the dogs were not in compliance with Sections 34 and 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It found that no independent veterinary examination was conducted and no judicial order authorised the handing over of the animals to SGACC.

“It is observed and held that the entire action of the revisionist and custody of the animals in question is vitiated by procedural illegality, bias, conflict of interest, and colourable exercise of power, with the tacit or active assistance of the police authorities,” the Court said.

The Court further flagged the “calculated silence” maintained by the centre, holding that it paralysed the proceedings and caused inordinate delay. It noted that SGACC had consciously withheld reports, as their disclosure could expose “serious irregularities, illegalities, and gross negligence” in the handling of the animals during its custody.

Counsel for the dog owner, Advocate Mayank Sharma, told the Court that the dogs were subjected to unauthorised medical procedures and that some had even been sold without his client’s consent. He submitted that four female dogs had undergone sterilisation procedures, involving removal of their ovaries, without the owner’s permission, knowledge, or any legal authorisation.

Earlier, on January 22, the Court had imposed a fine of ₹5,000 on SGACC for failing to comply with its direction to release all 10 dogs. While the investigating officer informed the court that eight dogs had been handed over to the owner, Vishal’s counsel disputed the claim, stating that four of the returned dogs appeared mutilated and that two dogs; a Maltese and a Poodle, were still not returned.

The Court has now come down heavily on the animal care centre, holding that its actions undermined both statutory safeguards and judicial authority.

Previously, on January 13, the Court had come down heavily on an animal shelter that failed to comply with judicial orders directing the handover of ten dogs seized during a criminal investigation, observing that animals are “living, sentient beings” and not disposable case property.