In a significant hearing at the Supreme Court of India, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi emphasized the critical need for involving domain specialists, rather than relying solely on legal advisors, when deciding on complex issues like the management of stray dogs. The arguments were presented before a three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath on Friday, January 10, 2026.
The Core Argument: Expertise Over Generalism
Appearing for the Haryana-based animal sanctuary All Creatures Great and Small, Singhvi drew a direct parallel to the court's recent approach in the Aravalli hills case. He reminded the bench, which also included Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, that the court had recently stayed its own November 20, 2025 judgment which defined the Aravalli hills based on a 100-meter elevation rule. That stay was ordered specifically to await a fresh assessment by a panel of domain experts, as the original committee was comprised mostly of bureaucrats and generalists.
"Amici are law advisors to your lordships. They are not domain experts," Singhvi submitted. "Your Lordships must have domain expertise along with an amicus. Certain matters like this require domain expertise." He argued that for a decision as significant as the one on stray dogs, inputs from specialists would "separate the wheat from the chaff," leading to a higher quality, more implementable order.
The Context: Challenging the November 7 Order
The bench was hearing applications seeking modification of its November 7, 2025 interim order. That order had directed the removal of stray dogs from the premises of sensitive institutions like schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands, and railway stations. The dogs were to be relocated to designated shelters after due sterilization and vaccination as per the Animal Birth Control Rules.
Singhvi contended that while the court's concerns about safety in hospitals and schools were valid, they needed to be filtered through a committee with relevant expertise. He pointed out that the November 7 order, though interim in nature, had "all the trappings, the insignia and the result and the actual content of a final order" and was implemented without domain-specific pleadings or a detailed hearing.
Incidents of Harassment and Judicial Response
During the proceedings, other lawyers highlighted ground realities. Senior advocate Maalakshmi Pavani, representing an animal rights activist, informed the court that dog feeders, especially women, were facing attacks. She cited an incident in Ghaziabad where a woman was allegedly slapped for feeding dogs, but no FIR was registered. Pavani added that some residential societies had even hired bouncers to tackle dog feeders.
Responding to this, Justice Vikram Nath stated firmly that such harassment must be taken seriously. "If someone is harassing women, it's a crime under the penal code," he said, advising victims to get FIRs lodged and approach High Courts for relief.
Another counsel mentioned a friendly dog named 'Goldie' at AIIMS. Justice Sandeep Mehta, however, expressed concern about health risks, noting, "Any dog in the street is likely to have ticks. Imagine if they enter hospitals... don't try to glorify them."
The Way Forward: A Call for Expert Intervention
Singhvi's central plea was for the Supreme Court to adopt the Aravalli case model for the stray dog issue as well. He asserted that involving domain experts is "a must" and would ensure the final outcome is robust and constitutionally sound. "This is now not entirely a matter about dogs or about humans. It's about certain constitutional principles, the limits of constitutional power," he concluded.
The Supreme Court has not yet passed a final order on the applications seeking modification. The hearing underscores the growing judicial recognition that complex socio-environmental issues require specialized knowledge beyond legal expertise for effective and equitable resolution.
