Nanditha Krishna

Mr @SaketGokhale Your appeal overlooks the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while passing directions regarding stray dogs in Delhi, has exercised its constitutional powers under Articles 32 & 142 to balance public safety with administrative responsibility. The order is not “arbitrary” it is a judicial response to repeated failures by local authorities to curb rabies-related deaths and attacks, despite the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 & 2023 being in place. The Court’s observations align with Article 21 rights not only of animals, but also of citizens, especially children and the elderly, who are at risk. Judicial intervention became necessary after years of non-compliance by civic bodies and the rising number of fatalities. Furthermore, the directions do not endorse “wanton cruelty” they call for removal and sheltering of aggressive stray dogs in a regulated manner, while still ensuring vaccination, sterilization, and possibility of adoption as per law. This is in consonance with the ABC Rules and Section 11 of the PCA Act, which prohibit unnecessary pain but permit lawful seizure for public safety. Thus, instead of perceiving the order as a step towards cruelty, it should be seen as a judicial enforcement mechanism for existing statutory obligations that municipal bodies have long neglected. The larger Bench review you seek may still happen, but meanwhile, the order ensures immediate protection of human life while keeping the welfare of animals within the legal framework.