Stray Dogs Case: Supreme Court Asks Lawyers to Study Report on Feral Dogs in Ladakh

Senior Advocate CU Singh submitted that four major states had formally objected to the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). He flagged concerns about abrupt removal of dogs, arguing that it could disrupt ecological balance by increasing rodent populations, which are disease carriers. Justice Mehta, in a lighter moment, remarked that promoting cats could help tackle rodents, but clarified that the Court had not ordered removal of all dogs and that animals must be dealt with strictly in accordance with the Rules.

Singh emphasised that sterilisation and re-release in the same area was the only model proven to work, warning that mass sheltering in congested facilities could spread diseases. He argued that repeated non-compliance by states should not lead to discarding the ABC Rules themselves.

Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal, appearing for a leading animal rights expert, highlighted the sheer scale of the problem, estimating the cost of the proposed approach at nearly ₹26,800 crore, requiring construction of over 91,000 shelters. He pointed out that there was no dedicated budgetary allocation for implementation of the Rules and proposed a single nodal agency, district-level infrastructure, trained manpower and utilisation of CSR funds. He also criticised the AWBI SOP for diluting safety standards, including reducing fence heights and authorising untrained personnel to capture dogs.

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta argued that the lack of a nationwide census was a fundamental flaw, noting that the last census was conducted in 2009. He cautioned that capturing dogs without knowing shelter capacity violated the Rules and risked mixing infected and healthy animals. He urged the Court to keep its earlier directions in abeyance until adequate data and infrastructure were in place.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan stressed that census and identification should precede any removal, calling the situation one of “complete non-compliance” by states. He also raised concerns over a previous direction requiring animal lovers and NGOs to deposit money before being heard, arguing it created a barrier to access to justice. Justice Nath quipped that without such a measure, the Court would need a pandal to hear everyone.

Several Senior Advocates, including Vinay Navare and Nakul Diwan, reiterated that the ABC Rules were not under challenge and that re-release was the norm. They advocated scaling successful models like the Lucknow and IIT Delhi initiatives nationwide, enhancing local body involvement, and considering technologies like micro-chipping.

Counsel appearing for victims and citizen groups highlighted repeated dog bite incidents, arguing that aggressive dogs should not be automatically re-released and that residential complexes should receive protection similar to institutions. They contended that public access to homes and streets under Article 21 could not be curtailed by feeding zones.

On the animal welfare side, Senior Advocates Shyam Diwan and Siddharth Luthra pressed for constitution of an expert committee and cautioned against directions that went beyond statutory rules. They warned that prolonged detention of dogs could amount to cruelty and stressed that existing statutory bodies should be allowed to function.

Intervenors from universities such as Delhi University and IIT Delhi placed data on record showing successful sterilisation, vaccination and monitoring programmes that had virtually eliminated aggression and rabies without relocating dogs. They argued that institutional initiatives, supported by administration, could offer immediate relief even as broader infrastructure was developed.

Summing up, the Bench acknowledged the seriousness of the issue, balancing human safety with animal welfare. It directed that the matter would continue tomorrow (January 9) and asked counsel to come prepared after reading a Times of India article dated December 29 on feral dogs hunting rare species in Ladakh, indicating that ecological impact would also be considered.