The Supreme Court of India finds itself at the center of a growing controversy over its handling of the nation's stray dog issue. Legal experts and animal rights activists are raising serious questions about judicial overreach, disregard for established law, and the sidelining of scientific consensus in recent court proceedings.
An Order That Defies Law and Logistics
On November 7, 2025, the Supreme Court passed an order directing municipalities to pick up all stray dogs from "institutional land" and relocate them to shelters. This directive, issued without detailed reasoning, has been met with bewilderment and concern. The order fails to define "institutional land" clearly, leaving room for interpretation that could include private properties designated by development authorities.
More critically, the court remained silent on the monumental logistical and financial challenges of this order. Key questions about who will build the shelters, where the land and funding will come from, and how the welfare of lakhs of confined dogs will be managed were left unanswered. The order also ignores the scientific method endorsed globally: CNVR (Catch, Neuter, Vaccinate, and Release), which is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Contradicting Its Own Precedent and Statute
The court's latest order appears to directly contradict existing Indian law. The management of stray dogs is governed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. These laws explicitly mandate that stray dogs be caught, sterilized, vaccinated, and released back to their original locations. The Supreme Court itself upheld this legal framework in the All-India Stray Dogs judgment on May 9, 2024, affirming the constitutional validity of the PCA Act and ABC Rules.
Legal observers, including advocate Siddhartha K Garg, argue that the court cannot simply ignore a statute that "squarely occupies the field." For the court to mandate relocation, it would first need to strike down the existing laws as unconstitutional—a step not taken, nor is the validity of these laws currently under challenge in the present suo motu proceedings initiated on August 11, 2025.
A Denial of Hearing and a Constitutional Quandary
The process followed by the court has compounded the controversy. The November 7 relocation order was reportedly passed without hearing the arguments of the parties present, despite their counsels' vehement requests. The matter was listed for an urgent hearing on December 18, 2025, only to be deleted from the cause list the night before. All subsequent requests for a hearing were dismissed, with the next date pushed to January 7, 2026.
This is particularly stark given that on August 22, 2025, the court had demanded that NGOs representing stray dogs deposit ₹2 lakh as a fee to be heard in the matter. This "pay to be heard" condition, imposed on the fundamental right to access courts, has yet to result in a proper hearing for the parties.
The situation raises profound constitutional questions. When the Supreme Court passes orders that contravene parliamentary laws, ignores scientific evidence, and denies parties a hearing, it challenges the very foundations of its authority. As the writer notes, this issue has transcended the problem of stray dogs, potentially morphing into a full-blown constitutional crisis concerning the separation of powers and the rule of law.
