On Thursday, the Supreme Court refused to accord urgent hearing to petitions contesting a recent notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) directing the capture of stray dogs across the capital. The matter was mentioned before Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, who declined to pass any immediate direction for listing.
The controversy stems from an earlier order dated August 11, delivered in a suo motu proceeding by a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan. The Bench had directed the MCD to begin rounding up stray dogs from all parts of Delhi, giving priority to vulnerable areas, and to establish shelters with an initial capacity of 5,000 within eight weeks. The order further prohibited the re-release of dogs, mandated sterilisation, immunisation and de-worming, and required shelters to be staffed and equipped with CCTV, food, and medical facilities.
Additional directions included creation of a helpline within a week to report dog bites, mandatory capture of offending dogs within four hours of complaint, and publication of monthly vaccination and treatment data. The Court had also cautioned that obstruction by animal rights activists would be treated as contempt.
In its observations, the Court linked the menace of dog bites to violations of citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, highlighting statistics showing over 25,000 reported cases in 2024 and more than 3,000 cases in January 2025 alone. It criticised certain activists for “virtue signalling” while ignoring public safety concerns, which triggered strong protests from animal rights groups.
The matter was later brought before Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai with submissions regarding multiple pending proceedings on stray dogs before different Benches of the Court, raising the possibility of inconsistent directions. The CJI assured that the issue would be considered, leading to its reassignment before a new three-judge Bench.
Subsequently, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the matter and reserved orders on challenges to the August 11 directions but did not stay the implementation of measures ordered earlier. This development prompted fresh applications seeking to halt the ongoing actions of municipal authorities in compliance with the initial ruling.
Picture Source :
