Delhi’s stray dog issue

The recent Supreme Court proceedings on Delhi’s stray dog issue highlight a delicate balance between humanity towards animals and the constitutional duty to protect human life and safety.

Context of the Supreme Court case

The Supreme Court is hearing a suo motu matter titled “In Re: ‘City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price’” (SMW(C) No. 5/2025), triggered by disturbing reports of dog bites and rabies in Delhi, especially affecting children. The Court has already recorded that recurring incidents of dog bites in schools, hospitals, railway stations and sports complexes indicate serious administrative lapses and systemic failure in securing citizens’ right to safety under Article 21.

The LiveLaw report and court exchange

During the latest hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal challenged the rules framed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) as “very very inhuman”, arguing they run contrary to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.[1] The bench (Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta) responded that in the next hearing they would play a video and “ask what is humanity”, indicating a willingness to test, on concrete facts, where the line lies between compassion for animals and protection of vulnerable humans.

Supreme Court’s directions on stray dogs

The Court has directed that stray dogs be removed from institutional premises such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations, and relocated to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination. It has also mandated that dogs picked up from such sensitive locations are not to be released back at the same place, clearly prioritising public safety without giving a licence for indiscriminate cruelty.

Humanity, Article 21 and municipal duty

Two overlapping notions of humanity emerge: one in the constitutional sense—protecting human life, dignity and bodily integrity—and the other in the ethical sense—avoiding unnecessary cruelty to animals. When the Court speaks of “what is humanity”, it implicitly asks whether a policy that allows children to be mauled or exposes the poor to rabies can ever be defended in the name of animal rights, especially when statutory structures like shelters, sterilisation and vaccination are underutilised or absent.

Implications for Delhi, MCD and future litigation

For Delhi and the MCD, this litigation is a reminder that municipal policy cannot be ad hoc; it must be firmly anchored in statute, scientific public health measures, and transparent procedures that can withstand judicial scrutiny. For lawyers and citizens, the case underlines that future challenges—whether from residents, welfare organisations or authorities—will likely be tested against a standard that insists on both genuine animal welfare and uncompromising protection of human life under Article 21.

Advocate Ganesh Mishra - Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court 

9136273395

advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com