On 28^th July, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of the mounting cases of dog bites reported in Delhi and four adjoining districts on the basis of a report published by The Times of India, titled, ‘City hounded by strays, kids pay price’, which in the court’s opinion contained “extremely alarming” and disturbing details of how the rising cases of dog bites puts lives of the people on the streets at peril. Following which, on 11^th August, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court passed an order directing the authorities for the immediate picking of the stray dogs from all the concerned localities and their permanent detention in shelter houses which were ordered to be set up within eight weeks. Additionally, the court ordered a helpline to be set up within a time span of two weeks for reporting cases of dog bites that would ultimately lead to the capture of the dogs from the reported area. The order with its far-reaching consequences, was met with scepticism and criticism. The direction of the Supreme Court regarding the permanent capture of the stray dogs was considered, by some, to be barbaric and inhumane, triggering protests. Subsequently a plea was filed on 14^th August challenging the order of the apex court following which a three judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Sandeep Mehta, Vikram Nath and N.V Anjaria, reserved it’s order. As the entire nation waited in anticipation the Supreme Court in less than a week, on 22^nd August expressed how the previous order was a bit “too harsh”. The court in its subsequent order made a crucial modification and directed the authorities to release the dogs, ones they were sterilised and vaccinated, into the same locality from which they were captured. But the court made it clear that this modification shall under no scenario apply upon the dogs “infected or suspected to be infected with rabies, or those displaying aggressive behaviour”. Such canines were to be sterilised and immunised but not to be released at any cost.

The modified decision of the Supreme Court although, being celebrated nation-wide, highlights some deeply rooted concerns that continue to wreck and halt the prosperity of the nation.

Lack Of Accountability: The Edifice Of Adversity

In India, animal welfare is not something new, it can be traced back to the time of Emperor Ashoka who issued edicts calling for compassionate treatment towards the animals and complete abolition of animal sacrifice. In 1960, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was enacted which prohibits various acts of cruelty committed upon the animals. It also provided for the establishment of an Animal Welfare Board to secure and carry out the provision of the PCA. Further in 2001, Animal Birth Control Rules were formulated which were later revised in 2023. In the presence of such acts, it’s evident that India never lacked the enactment of legislations regarding animal welfare but a ‘mere’ enactment not coupled up with implementation is symbolic of inaction on the part of the executive authorities. This inaction is not only a disregard towards the laws in force but also, it is meant to create such ‘consequences’ in the long run. The apex court in the order passed on 11^th August, stated that “we are shocked to know that on an average of 20,000 dog bites are reported yearly”. Perhaps, the need was a mere implementation and if the same was done, the numbers of such gruesome incidents could have been lesser.

Executive inaction further adds to judicial pendency which has already risen above 53 million in the year of 2025. It shows that when the executive authorities are not vigilant, judiciary has to step into the domain of ‘policy formulation’ and ‘implementation’ which belonged to the legislative and executive authorities to begin with.

The  Procedure Adopted By The Court : A Humane Choice Or An Ambiguity In Disguise?

While the decision of the court, reflected through its initial order passed on 11^th August, was considered to be barbaric and cruel by the animals rights activists, yet another section of the society thought it was the need of the hour . The chaos that followed left the nation divided between those who criticized the order and those who hailed it. However, apart from this, the order in its ‘legal’ context appears to be a violation of procedural fairness. The court made it clear that it was not willing to entertain any intervention while it took the cognizance of the matter. It stated that “we are not inclined to entertain any intervention application”. Although the court made it clear that ones the pertaining matters were set aside, it would consider the intervention applications. This procedure adopted by the court, in itself, is a violation of the Right to be heard enshrined in the maxim Audi Alteram Partem. This rule of natural justice mandates all the parties to the conflict to be heard and a judgement passed to the detriment of any party without a reasonable opportunity to be heard is a blatant violation of it. The procedure adopted by the court opened the doors for the intervention applications but not while the case was being heard and decided but after, in the words of the court, “the relevant details are placed”. The order also appears to be a violation of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 formulated under the PCA, 1960 as it ran contrary to the rule of releasing the canines once they were immunised and sterilised. However in its modified order on 22^nd August the court addressed this lacunae and made it clear that “The directions to the extent that they prohibit the release of the picked up strays, shall be kept at abeyance for the time being”. The modified order unleashed a wave of happiness and people celebrated it applauding the humane approach of the apex court towards the living creatures.

However what makes the two orders different from each other, is a question that still pertains. The modification that is seen as a drastic change is quite dubious and ambiguous in its terminology. The words, to keep the permanent detention of the canines at abeyance, “for the time being”, somewhere reflects that in essence both the orders actually have the same gist. It reflects a kind of uncertainty as to whether this modified order will pertain in the long run or not? The question however was not addressed in the order of the court.

Rights Vs. Rights : Balancing Out The Conflicting Interests

The Supreme Court of India, being the interpreter of the law, has applied law not in a vacuum, but in consonance with the contemporary social mores. The Constitution being codified is heavily dependent upon the interpretation of the courts so as to widen or narrow down its scope respectively whenever required. The enormous diversity in India is of no surprise and the varied interests leads to conflicts which are inevitable in the contemporary social reality. The stance of the court in its initial order gave birth to a debate of conflicting interests. While it was contested on one hand that the initial order of the court violates and infringes Article 51(g) of the Indian Constitution, the court on the other hand based its order on the protection and safeguarding the Right to life (of people), enshrined in under article 21.

Following the conflicting  opinions that followed, the court once again, like it has been since time immemorial doing, opted to balance out the conflicting interests in the society for the bigger purpose, that is the maintenance of peace in society with a view to protect the public order.

The apex court ordered for the release of the stray dogs subject to them being immunised and sterilised. This middle path opted by the court protected the lives of the people and also made sure that no cruelty in the face of permanent detention was inflicted upon the animals.

The Problems That Lurk Behind The Curtains

These two unprecedented orders have seen that India has fostered a way for animal welfare and assimilated in its legal stature a huge room for the benefit of all the living creatures including the animals. But this progressive aspect of the India society is accompanied by a varied combination of some major set backs that continues to wrap the nation in the clothes of uncertainty. The issue of the stray dogs [IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE”] which gained a mass audience and a broad variety of opinions was in reality, a policy issue. An issue where the failure of executive to implement the existing laws and policies led to the judicial intervention. The judiciary had to step in and take over the reins from the hands of the executive to stop the gruesome incidents of dog bites. One might also argue that there exist multiple policy issues such as the alleged electoral fraud and voter manipulation, that wander as dark clouds in the thin air and have the potential to disrupt the democracy of the country. Some may even think that these might have deserved court’s priority and consideration. The executive with its inaction not only creates a need for ‘judicial interference’ in the society but also contributes to the sky rocketing judicial pendency in the Indian society. It’s not for the judiciary to enter into the domain of policy implementation but it’s for the executive to cross all t(s) and dot all i(s) and put the statute to its best use.