Supreme Court reserves order on plea challenging removal of stray dogs from streets of Delhi NCR
'Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. They should be here taking responsibility,' a Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath and also comprising Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria underscored. However, the top court declined to grant a stay on the directions issued to civic bodies by a Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Union Government, said most fatalities from dog bites and rabies involved children and called for an urgent resolution to the escalating public health risk posed by stray dogs. 'Nobody is an animal hater. Children are dying. This issue needs to be resolved, not to be contested,' he said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for an NGO which looks after dogs, said the situation was 'very serious' and the matter needed to be argued in depth. He pressed for a stay on some of the directives in the August 11 order, contending that they contravened the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which prohibit relocation of strays from their original place of habitation.
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the August 11, 2025, order 'puts the horse before the cart,' as there were no adequate shelters to accommodate the strays. He added that the directive contravenes earlier Supreme Court rulings mandating strict adherence to the ABC Rules, 2023, in rehabilitating stray dogs.
The suo-motu case, initially heard by a Bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, was later reassigned by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath. On August 13, 2025, a lawyer apprised the Chief Justice of a May 9, 2024, order to treat stray canines with compassion. The CJI had agreed to list the case after this oral mentioning.
Taking cognisance of increasing instances of stray dog attacks on children, including infants, Justice Pardiwala had said authorities should 'at the earliest start picking up stray dogs from all localities, more particularly the vulnerable localities of the city as well as areas on the outskirts.'
However, the directive sparked widespread outrage among animal rights activists, public figures, and welfare organisations, who argued that the region lacks sufficient facilities to accommodate an estimated eight lakh stray dogs. They warned that the large-scale capture of so many animals could result in logistical chaos and lead to acts of cruelty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
B-2 stealth bomber roars overhead as Trump, Putin arrive at Alaska base; internet debates whether it was a show of honor or a veiled warning
A dramatic flyover by a US B-2 stealth bomber , flanked by four F-22 Raptor fighters, greeted Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as they stepped off their planes at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday, August 15. As per ABC, the Pentagon confirmed two B-2s had been flown into the base ahead of the high-stakes summit, the same aircraft type used in June's Operation Midnight Hammer to strike Iran's nuclear sites. The scene, complete with a red carpet and F-22 Raptors lined along the tarmac, is the B-2's status as a symbol of US military might , capable of flying around the world without refueling and delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions. But the flyover sparked a split online. Some saw it as an extraordinary diplomatic salute . 'B-2 flyover is absolutely the highest honor. I cannot think of a visiting leader who got one of those in recent years,' posted a user, Old Lion, on X. Others called it provocative. 'Stupid provocation, likely breaking security protocol for summit. USA can't be trusted is the message,' wrote jjunio007. Live Events 'Was that a compliment or a warning?' wondered another, while one user summed up the other side of the argument: '0% power play, 100% honor.' Alaska Summit News First posted on X that, 'With jets flying overhead, Trump turns to Putin and says, 'This is for you.' About the B-2 bomber The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber ranks among the most expensive aircraft ever made, with each unit costing over $2 billion when factoring in 1997 adjustments. According to Britannica, the development program for 21 aircraft totaled around $44 billion, and maintaining one costs roughly $40 million annually. By comparison, as per SlashGear, the F-22 Raptor, prized for its stealth and air-superiority capabilities, has a unit cost of about $143 million and annual operating costs exceeding $10 million per jet.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Regulate stray dog population, shelters not the solution: RSS chief
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat (File photo) NEW DELHI: RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has said the stray dog issue in Delhi-NCR should be addressed through measures to regulate their population, rather than confining them to shelters - an approach that echoes the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules mandated under law. Bhagwat's comments come amid renewed debate over the Supreme Court's Aug 11 order directing Delhi-NCR authorities to permanently relocate all strays to shelters. "All animals have the right to live. The problem can be solved only by regulating the population of street dogs, but it cannot be resolved by putting them in shelters," said Bhagwat, a veterinary science graduate, while addressing a religious congregation at Jawaharlal Nehru Indoor Stadium in Cuttack Thursday. He added, "Sheltering all street dogs is not a practical solution. The only effective way is to implement sterilisation and vaccination, as already prescribed in law. " He referred to a cultural practice involving cattle rearing, saying that while milking a cow, some milk is taken for human use and the rest is left for the calf. "This is the art of striking a balance between man and nature. Nature should be conserved by maintaining a balance between development and the environment," he said. SC's Aug 11 order has been criticised by politicians, animal rights groups and scientists, who argue it contradicts the ABC (Dogs) Rules, 2023. On Wednesday, CJI B R Gavai withdrew the suo motu case from the earlier bench, and a larger three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath heard the matter afresh on Thursday.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Deadline for guvs, Prez will tilt power balance: Centre
The Union government has cautioned the Supreme Court that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on state bills, as mandated by the court in an April ruling, would amount to one organ of government assuming powers not vested in it, upsetting the delicate separation of powers and leading to a 'constitutional disorder'. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) In detailed written submissions filed in a presidential reference under Article 143, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the apex court cannot, even under its extraordinary powers in Article 142, amend the Constitution or defeat the intent of its framers by creating procedural mandates where none exist in the constitutional text. According to SG Mehta, while there may be 'limited issues in the operationalisation' of the assent procedure, these cannot justify 'relegating the high position of the gubernatorial office to a subservient one'. The positions of the governor and the president, he argued, are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses, he said, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and 'not necessarily judicial' interventions. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, has set aside nine days of hearings, starting from August 19 and spreading into September, to decide 14 constitutional questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. These questions stem from the Supreme Court's April 8 judgment that, for the first time, imposed binding timelines on governors and the president in relation to state bills, and held that prolonged inaction could result in 'deemed assent' under Article 142. The April verdict, delivered by justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, arose from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government alleging that its governor had indefinitely delayed action on 10 important bills. It directed governors to act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-passed bills, and to decide within three months whether to grant assent or reserve them for presidential consideration. The ruling described the governor's inaction as 'illegal' and a constitutional subversion, prompting a fierce debate on the limits of judicial review over high constitutional functionaries. Challenging the foundations of that decision, Mehta has told the court that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governor's and the president's options upon receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution,' he said. Articles 200 and 201, Mehta emphasised, employ four different verbs -- 'assent', 'withhold', 'reserve' and 'return' -- each carrying distinct meaning and discretionary scope. This flexibility, he said, was 'carefully crafted' by the framers to meet exigencies that cannot always be anticipated. Any attempt to fix rigid timelines 'renders the intention of the framers nugatory' and hampers the ability of these high functionaries to safeguard constitutional compliance, democratic principles and the national interest. The submissions further contend that certain 'high-plenary' constitutional functions are inherently non-justiciable because they are textually committed to the political branches, and there are no judicially manageable standards for reviewing them. 'The assent of the governor or the president is integrally connected with the legislative process of a state legislature and attracts the constitutional bars on judicial inquiry under Articles 122 and 212,' Mehta said. Such acts, he added, fall within the category of proceedings that cannot be called into question in a court of law. The SG also cited Article 361, which grants immunity to the president and governors from court proceedings for acts done in the exercise of their official duties. The phrase 'done or purported to be done' in discharge of constitutional responsibility, Mehta said, is of 'wide import' and bars any relief that would require these functionaries to explain their decisions or act in a particular fashion. The Centre has argued that Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to do 'complete justice', is curative and procedural in nature, and cannot be used to override constitutional provisions or reallocate powers vested in other organs. 'The very width of the power brings with it a high threshold of duty to not exercise the same in such a manner that amends the text of the Constitution itself and fundamental constitutional and legal principles,' the submissions stated. Article 142, Mehta insisted, is 'not a supervening judicial power' that can run contrary to the constitutional scheme. The presidential reference, the first of its kind in several years, poses far-reaching questions: whether 'deemed assent' is constitutionally valid; whether timelines for governors and the president can be imposed through judicial orders; whether the exercise of their discretion under Articles 200 and 201 is justiciable; whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review; and whether disputes of this nature can be decided through the court's writ jurisdiction or only under Article 131, which governs disputes between the Union and states. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have already challenged the maintainability of the reference, calling it an attempt to re-litigate settled law and a disguised appeal against the April ruling. The bench will hear their preliminary objections for an hour on August 19 before moving to the merits of the Union's case. Since Independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on questions of law and public importance. While not binding on the president, such opinions have historically influenced constitutional interpretation in significant ways.
