'Issue due to authorities’ inaction': SC reserves verdict on Delhi stray dog removal

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on pleas seeking a stay on the August 11 suo motu directive to remove stray dogs from Delhi-NCR and relocate them to shelters. A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria heard the matter after the suo motu case was shifted from the two-judge bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which had initially issued the directions.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, highlighted public safety concerns, stating that approximately 37 lakh dog bites occur annually in India, resulting in around 20,000 rabies-related deaths each year. He argued that sterilisation and immunisation alone cannot prevent attacks and emphasised the need to separate stray dogs from public areas to reduce risks to children.

Senior advocates representing NGOs, including Kapil Sibal and Colin Gonsalves, said the authorities have failed to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules. Sibal requested a stay on the removal directives, highlighting insufficient shelter capacity and the potential for overcrowding and attacks among dogs in the shelters. He also sought directions for releasing dogs that had already been picked up under the August 11 order.

The August 11 two-judge bench order had directed the NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to create dog shelters and report infrastructure development within eight weeks. The order required shelters to accommodate sterilised and immunised stray dogs, maintain daily records of captured animals, establish a helpline for dog-bite cases, and ensure no captured dog is released. Authorities were also asked to monitor vaccine availability and report stock details.

The Supreme Court bench emphasised that the problem arose from inaction by local authorities in implementing ABC rules. The court asked the municipal corporations and government bodies to clarify steps taken so far and ensure compliance with legislation. The bench reserved its order on the pleas, including requests to stay specific directions from the August 11 order, and will hear the matter further after reviewing submissions and compliance details.