The Supreme Court on Day 2 of hearing in its suo motu proceedings on the stray dog menace continued to hear extensive submissions on the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, availability of infrastructure, and the need for a balanced and humane policy framework.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria was informed by Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal that four States, which had not filed compliance affidavits earlier, submitted their responses late last night. With this, compliance had been received from 16 States, while seven States were yet to file their affidavits. The Amicus sought one more day to complete a consolidated tabular chart of State-wise compliance.
Resuming his submissions, Senior Advocate C.U. Singh cautioned against abrupt removal of stray dogs, highlighting the risk of unintended consequences such as rodent proliferation and disease outbreaks. He referred to studies and past incidents, including experiences in Surat, to argue that ecological balance must be maintained. Singh submitted that ABC Rules, when properly implemented, have proven effective, and non-compliance by authorities should not justify discarding the existing regulatory framework.
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta emphasised that the ABC Rules themselves contemplate capture of dogs only when adequate shelter capacity exists. He submitted that without accurate data on dog population, shelter infrastructure and manpower, enforcement of recent directions would be impractical. He urged the Court to consider keeping certain directions in abeyance until reliable data becomes available, also drawing attention to UGC guidelines recommending the establishment of animal welfare societies in educational institutions.
Senior Advocate Sankarnarayanan stressed strict adherence to the ABC Rules and the standard operating procedures issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), particularly the SOP dated 27 November, which prioritises identification of institutions, dog census, shelter capacity, veterinary care and management by trained staff. He pointed out that even States like Karnataka, which possess substantial data, have struggled with proper implementation. Expressing reservations over a direction requiring individual animal lovers to deposit sums for approaching the Court, he suggested that such conditions may deter access to justice. The Bench responded that the amount was, if anything, modest and necessary to prevent unmanageable interventions.
Senior Advocate Vinay Navare submitted that the problem lies not in the rules but in their poor implementation, and called for budgetary planning at the local body level, especially in view of the impending financial cycle ending on 31 March. He suggested involving village panchayats and municipal bodies, and proposed limited, phased implementation through High Court oversight rather than sweeping pan-India directions.
Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan advocated for the constitution of an expert committee, noting that affidavits revealed severe infrastructure deficits across States, including Delhi. He argued for strategies aimed at decelerating the growth of community dogs rather than extreme measures, stressing the importance of returning sterilised dogs to their original territories. Dewan also proposed microchipping and geotagging of dogs and suggested that an expert body comprising government representatives, municipal authorities, veterinarians and NGOs examine these measures holistically.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra submitted that certain directions issued by the Court went beyond the existing ABC Rules, which are grounded in scientific research. He argued that in the absence of a legislative vacuum, judicial directions should not override a duly notified statutory framework without expert input.
Appearing as an animal welfare practitioner, Advocate Karuna Nandy shared field-level experience implementing ABC programmes, citing the IIT Delhi model, where comprehensive sterilisation, vaccination, microchipping and geotagging resulted in elimination of rabies cases and dog-bite complaints without relocating dogs. She recommended measures such as isolation vans for rabid dogs, dedicated incinerators for carcass disposal, segregation of stray and pet dog bite data, and demarcation of feeding zones in consultation with resident welfare associations.
Concluding the hearing, the Bench directed that arguments would resume the next day. Justice Sandeep Mehta requested all counsel to review a Times of India article dated 29 December titled “On the roof of the world, feral dogs hunt down Ladakh’s rare species” and come prepared to address the broader ecological implications.
The matter will be taken up again at 10:30 AM tomorrow.
*Sr Advocate Nakul Dewan was briefed by Shalaka Patil, Amaan Rahman and Ayush Chaturvedi, Trilegal.