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.Hearing in the matter ended today and the bench will ensemble again on January 20.
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.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.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.
Follow us
