I will look into this, says CJI on stray dogs matter amid uproar over SC order. What happened in court
The CJI was hearing a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Conference for Human Rights—a non-governmental organisation—that had sought a count of all stray dogs in the region, and raised concerns about the implementation of Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules by municipal authorities.
New Delhi: At a time when there is uproar among animal lovers over the Supreme Court's direction to remove all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR and move them to shelters within eight weeks, Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai was Wednesday apprised of a previous order of the top court that disallows the relocation and indiscriminate killing of stray dogs.
The petitioner, appearing in person, then mentioned that there is an earlier judgement passed by a coordinate bench of the SC 'which says there cannot be indiscriminate killing of canines…which says compassion for all living beings has to be there'.
To this, CJI Gavai said, 'I will look into this.'
While the animal welfare community has pinned its hopes on the CJI for possible relief, large sections of the public have welcomed the Supreme Court's Monday directions for removal of all stray dogs from the streets of Delhi-NCR, saying it was a much-needed step amid a rise in dog bite cases due to constant human-animal conflict, and the threat of rabies.
Animal lover groups, who have staunchly opposed the Supreme Court's Monday order, saying it is not just impractical, but also inhumane, are desperately waiting for a copy of the order, which is yet to be uploaded on the top court's website. 'We cannot do much until we have read the order. Meanwhile, even though it is not out yet, orders and government directions are being issued in other states citing it,' advocate Gauri Puri, who was present at the proceedings before CJI Gavai Wednesday, told ThePrint.
Soon after the Supreme Court's Monday order, the Rajasthan High Court directed municipal bodies to undertake a special drive to remove stray dogs and other animals from city roads. The Goa government too has constituted a special task force on stray dog management.
While hearing the SLP Wednesday, a bench of CJI Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih gave the respondent, in this case the Union government, six weeks to file a counter-affidavit.
The earlier judgement the petitioner mentioned before the CJI pertained to a bunch of petitions regarding Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules that the Supreme Court had heard last year. They sought consideration as to whether the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the ABC Rules, 2001, would prevail over the municipal laws of states in the management of stray dogs.
The Supreme Court had then disposed of the petitions stating that all parties could pursue their remedies in the courts.
However, it had said: '…under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation(s) in place. There is no gainsaying in the fact that exhibiting compassion to all living beings, is the enshrined Constitutional value and mandate, and cast obligation on the authorities to maintain.'
Meanwhile, actor John Abraham has written to CJI Gavai, urging him to review the apex court's Monday order on removal of all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR.
Also Read: Why activists see SC order on removal of stray dogs as 'violation' of 2023 ABC rules
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
‘Vote Chori' Row: PIL in SC seeks SIT probe into Rahul Gandhi's allegations against EC
A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an SIT probe into the 'vote chori' allegations made by Rahul Gandhi against the BJP and Election Commission (EC). The PIL, filed by a lawyer, advocate Rohit Pandey, seeks directions from the Supreme Court to construct a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and look into the accusations made by the Leader of Opposition (LoP) at the Lok Sabha in recent days. Gandhi has alleged that there has been a large-scale electoral roll manipulation in Bengaluru Central and several other constituencies during Lok Sabha elections. "Upon coming across credible revelations, including a press conference dated 07.08.2025 by the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, alleging large-scale manipulation of genuine voters' names, and inclusion of fictitious entries in the electoral rolls of the Mahadevapura Assembly Constituency (falling within the Bengaluru Central Parliamentary Constituency), the Petitioner became gravely concerned, as such actions, if true, strike at the core of the "one person, one vote" principle enshrined under Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution," the plea states. The petitioner further said that upon independently verifying the authenticity of the reports cited through publicly available government data, it was found that there was sufficient prima facie material indicating that the allegations reveal a systemic attempt to dilute and distort the value of lawful votes. It therefore sought an urgent intervention from the Supreme Court. 'The allegations of dilution of the purity of electoral rolls directly undermines the constitutional vision of free and fair elections in the eyes of the community at large,' it says. The plea also urges the SC to give directions to frame and issue binding guidelines to the Election Commission to ensure transparency, accountability and integrity in the preparation, maintenance and publication of electoral rolls, including mechanisms for detection and prevention of duplicate or fictitious entries. It also sought a direction to the EC to publish electoral rolls in accessible, machine-readable and OCR-compliant formats to enable meaningful verification, audit and public scrutiny.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
No kennel space, can't take in more stray dogs, ABC centres tell MCD
All animal birth control (ABC) centres in Delhi, on Wednesday, expressed their inability to take in any more stray dogs, citing lack of kennel space and financial constraints, TOI has learnt. This was hours after an MCD officer directed NGOs running the ABC centres to start picking up "aggressive dogs" from vulnerable points, despite Delhi CM Rekha Gupta recently asking officials concerned to refrain from taking any "harsh action" against strays till the Supreme Court pronounces its final order on the issue. Seeking anonymity, ABC centre officials told TOI, "We have informed MCD in writing that all our kennels are full. ABC centres are small and designed for only carrying out sterilisation. Not a single ABC centre in Delhi is equipped to handle long-term housing of strays." This clearly validates the stand of protesting animal rights activists who have described the Supreme Court's Aug 11 order to remove all Delhi-NCR stray dogs to distant shelters as "inhumane, unscientific & illegal" and one that doesn't take into account the practical limitations of existing infra and resources. In fact, on Tuesday only, the central government informed Parliament that it intends to regulate street dog population through its ABC programme that mandates local civic bodies to catch and release strays back to their original locations post-sterilisation. The ABC rules, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, align with standards set by the World Organisation for Animal Health and promote the "Capture-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release method" for humane and effective stray population management, junior animal husbandry minister SP Singh Baghel had said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Governor stalling assent to bills undermines elected state governments: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the power of the governor to permanently withhold assent to bills would leave the state government, which is elected with majority, at his 'whims and fancies'. 'Would we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in over an appeal. The government elected with the majority will be at (the) whims and fancies of (the) governor,' Chief Justice of India(CJI), Justice B R Gavai, said. The court was hearing the maintainability of the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. The reference was concerning the April 8 ruling of the top court that set timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by the legislature. In the April 8 judgment, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to fix deadlines for the President and governors to act on state bills. Replying to the query of the CJI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the Constitution Bench of CJI B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P S Narasimha, and Justice Atul S Chandurkar that everyone derives power from the Constitution. On the powers of the governor under Article 200, Mehta said the governor has four options- assent to the bill, withhold assent, reserve the bill for consideration of the President or send it back to the legislature. He said that when the governor withholds assent, the bill falls through. Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the governor's powers regarding assent to bills passed by the state legislature. If a bill is returned, the legislature can pass it again with or without amendments, and the governor is then bound to give assent. The bench, however, remarked that the governor has to communicate his or her decision and that the focal point of the debate would be whether withholding is temporary or permanent. Mehta said the power to withhold is to be used rarely and only in the first instance, as it leads to the death of the bill. 'The governor is not just a postman. He represents the Union of India, appointed by the President. The President is elected by the entire nation by way of the entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression,' Mehta said. After the April 8 judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to consult the Supreme Court. This Article, commonly referred to as the power of 'Presidential Reference', empowers the President of India to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. President Murmu, on May 13, posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court of India on several aspects of law, including the ambit of the powers under Article 142. In response, the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu filed an application questioning the maintainability of the reference. It urged the Supreme Court to return the reference unanswered and said it was an attempt by the Centre to indirectly overrule binding judgments without disclosure. Meanwhile, the central government supported the reference, arguing that the power of governors and the President to act on bills cannot be bound by judicial timelines. The hearing will continue on Thursday.
