The Supreme Court today heard extensive arguments on the issue of stray dogs, animal–human conflict, and the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, with senior advocates advancing sharply divergent positions before a Bench.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar opened submissions by strongly defending the Supreme Court’s November 7, 2025 order, which directed removal of stray animals from institutional areas and campuses across the country and barred their re-release in such areas. Datar submitted that the order was “fully justified and statutorily supported,” arguing that there was no requirement for any expert committee and that the ABC Rules themselves were ultra vires over 60 central and state enactments.
Highlighting the dangers posed by feral dogs, Datar drew attention to wildlife concerns, particularly in Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, stating that there were around 55,000 feral dogs in Ladakh, posing a grave threat to endangered species such as snow leopards. He submitted that feral dogs in wildlife areas transmit diseases like distemper, which infect predators and lead to their eventual death.
On the ABC Rules, Datar pointed out that key terms such as “street dogs,” “community dogs,” and “abandoned pedigree dogs” are undefined, creating ambiguity. He argued that merely residing within a gated campus does not confer any vested right on a dog to remain there indefinitely. He further urged that the November 7 order be extended to airports, courts, public parks, and similar premises, noting incidents where municipal officials were allegedly assaulted while attempting to capture dogs.
The Bench concurred with concerns raised about court premises, referring to an incident in Gujarat where municipal officials were allegedly assaulted by lawyers during dog capture operations.
Datar concluded by submitting that the ABC Rules do not address the immediate danger of dog attacks, and that feral dogs, particularly in wildlife areas, fall outside their scope. He argued that forest authorities should be empowered to eliminate dogs attacking endangered wildlife.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh adopted a more balanced approach, urging the Court not to frame the issue as dogs versus humans but as part of a broader human–animal conflict. He pointed to deaths from snake bites and monkey attacks, while also noting that dogs play a role in rodent control and the ecosystem, though they are not keystone species.
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand opposed the November 7 order, arguing that removal of dogs without relocation back would be ineffective and unscientific. She stressed the need for coexistence, citing constitutional philosophy, the National Education Policy, and UGC guidelines promoting humane treatment of animals. Anand contended that removing dogs would create ecological vacuums, leading to more aggressive animals occupying those spaces. She emphasised strict adherence to ABC Rules, cooperation between local bodies and municipal authorities under Rule 10, and highlighted the shortage of functional ABC centres across the country.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy described the matter as involving deeply emotional and contentious issues. Responding to the Bench’s observation that emotions seemed to be focused only on dogs, Guruswamy clarified that she was “emotionally attached to human beings” and rejected elitist framing of species-based arguments. She traced the legislative intent behind animal welfare laws, referring to Parliamentary debates dating back to 1957, and argued that Parliament had consciously moved away from culling towards sterilisation as an effective solution.
Dr Guruswamy submitted that killing does not reduce dog populations, whereas sterilisation does, and blamed regulatory failure and underutilisation of funds for the present crisis. Invoking Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, she emphasised compassion for living creatures and warned that culling dehumanises society.
Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria argued that the large number of stray dogs is a consequence of ineffective implementation of the ABC Rules, citing underfunding, lack of capacity, and corruption. He maintained that intensive and scientific implementation of sterilisation programmes had reduced stray dog populations by up to 40 percent in certain studies, a claim the Bench questioned due to the absence of a comprehensive census.
In concluding observations, the Bench expressed concern over repetitive arguments and stated that it intended to hold the Union, States, and local authorities accountable for decades of inaction. The Court indicated it would devote substantial time to ascertain whether governments have any concrete plan of action. It warned that going forward, heavy compensation may be imposed on States for dog bite incidents and liability may also be fixed on dog feeders.
The matter will continue to be heard on January 20 at 2:00 PM.