The Supreme Court on August 21 declined to grant urgent listing to petitions challenging a Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) circular directing the rounding up of stray dogs in the capital.
The controversy stems from the Court’s earlier order dated August 8, 2025, where a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed municipal authorities to begin capturing stray dogs across all areas, prioritising vulnerable localities. The Bench mandated creation of shelters with an initial capacity of 5,000 dogs within eight weeks, prohibiting the release of captured dogs back onto the streets. It further directed sterilisation, vaccination, de-worming, and proper upkeep in shelters equipped with CCTV, staff, food, and medical care. Additional directions included setting up a helpline for bite victims, identifying and isolating aggressive dogs, and publishing monthly rabies vaccination and treatment reports.
On August 11, in a suo motu proceeding, the same Bench noted that unchecked dog bites infringed citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, citing over 25,000 reported dog bite cases in Delhi during 2024 and more than 3,000 cases in January 2025 alone. Justice Pardiwala strongly criticised animal rights activists opposing the relocation drive, remarking: “Will they be able to bring back all those children who have fallen prey to rabies? Will they put life back in those children?” The remarks triggered widespread protests from animal welfare groups.
Amid the furore, Advocate Nanita Sharma mentioned the matter before Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, seeking urgent listing, but the Court declined. The plea was subsequently placed before Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, who acknowledged concerns of overlapping proceedings on stray dogs before different benches, and directed that the issue be assigned to a new three-judge Bench.
A separate Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria has since reserved judgment on challenges to the August 11 order but declined to stay the implementation of earlier directions, leading to fresh applications seeking suspension of municipal action.