The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard detailed submissions from multiple senior counsels in a batch of matters concerning stray dog management, public safety and animal welfare. The proceedings saw arguments on the scope of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, the limits of judicial intervention, the role of scientific expertise, and the doctrine of proportionality.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat submitted that the Animal Birth Control Rules constitute binding law and strictly govern the manner in which stray dogs can be dealt with. He argued that the Rules do not permit relocation or displacement of sterilised dogs from their territories, except in limited circumstances expressly provided for aggressive or terminally ill animals.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan emphasised that the legislative intent behind the PCA Act and ABC Rules is to strike a carefully calibrated balance between human safety and humane treatment of animals. She submitted that the Rules were framed after expert consultation and international best practices, and cannot be diluted through ad-hoc judicial directions.
Sr Adv Divan argued that implementation failures cannot justify rewriting the law, and that enforcement mechanisms must operate within the statutory framework, not outside it. She underscored that any contrary approach would undermine the rule of law and create uncertainty for civic authorities and citizens alike.
Advocate Zal Andhyarujina placed reliance on empirical data, particularly from Mumbai, to demonstrate the success of the Catch–Sterilise–Vaccinate–Release (CSVR) model. He informed the Court that over 66,000 dogs have been sterilised, covering a substantial portion of the city’s stray dog population.
Andhyarujina warned that removal of dogs from their territories creates a vacuum, which is invariably filled by unsterilised, unvaccinated dogs, leading to increased aggression and public risk. He urged that paragraph 25(e) of the Court’s earlier order be read in conformity with Rule 9 of the ABC Rules, which mandates release of sterilised dogs back to their original locations.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the controversy is no longer about dogs versus humans, but about fundamental constitutional principles governing judicial power.
He argued that the PCA Act and ABC Rules form a complete and seamless statutory code, leaving no legislative vacuum that would justify judicial law-making. Judicial directions, he submitted, can operate only in the interstices of law, not in areas fully occupied by legislation.
Singhvi cautioned that even under Article 142, the Supreme Court cannot issue directions inconsistent with statutory provisions, citing Constitution Bench precedents. He further contended that the Court’s interim directions bear the trappings of finality, as they decide substantive issues, entail irreversible consequences, and involve permanent infrastructural and financial commitments.
He also highlighted the absence of domain-expert inputs at the stage when the interim directions were issued, arguing that an amicus curiae cannot substitute specialised scientific and technical expertise in complex policy matters.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing for the Karan Puri Foundation, submitted that the interim directions were never intended to be final, and must be assessed through the lens of constitutional empathy and proportionality.
Rao argued that permanent displacement of dogs fails the proportionality test, as it is neither necessary nor suitable when less restrictive alternatives under the ABC Rules exist. He submitted that removal often worsens safety by disrupting stable, vaccinated dog populations and creating territorial instability.
Invoking Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g), Rao urged the Court to consider the animal’s perspective as a voiceless stakeholder, and emphasised that humane coexistence models have successfully operated in residential colonies and public institutions.
He also placed a standard operating procedure (SOP) on record, proposing a graded, institution-specific approach, allowing RWAs and institutions an opportunity to demonstrate effective dog population management before coercive measures are adopted.
The Bench took note of the submissions made by all counsels. The matter remains pending, as the Court continues to examine how to balance public safety, statutory compliance, constitutional limits and humane animal welfare.