THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, August 14: The recent Supreme Court directives on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR have sparked a heated debate. A three-judge bench of the apex court is hearing multiple petitions on the matter today.
The complexity of the issue lies in the fact that it involves both concerns for human life and safety, as well as animal rights and compassion.
SG Tushar Mehta: Look at the figures, children are losing their lives
During the hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta informed the court that in 2024, around 3.7 million dog bite cases were recorded across the country, with 305 deaths caused by rabies, according to WHO estimates — and the actual figures may be even higher.
He said that despite sterilisation and vaccination drives, rabies has not been brought under control. Mehta stressed that this is not merely a matter of loving or hating animals, pointing out that children are now unable to play outside their homes.
He also referred to video footage showing dogs attacking people, adding that the majority are those who are suffering or distressed.
Kapil Sibal questions procedure
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing ‘Project Kindness’, sought a stay on the Supreme Court’s order, arguing that it was passed without notice or due process and that dog-catching operations have already begun.
He highlighted the poor condition of shelter homes, warning that cramming dogs into such facilities could make them more dangerous.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi: Fear being spread, no ground-level mechanism in place
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi accused SG Mehta’s stance and statistics of being prejudiced.
He said that figures presented in Parliament contradict claims about rabies deaths and that unnecessary fear is being created over the matter.
Singhvi also questioned the absence of an adequate ground-level framework to implement the court’s directions.
Supreme Court: This is the result of municipal inaction
At the end of the hearing, the Supreme Court refrained from delivering a final verdict, saying it wanted to hear all parties before deciding, and reserved its order for now.
However, the court made it clear that municipal and local authorities’ inaction lies at the root of the problem. Justice Nath remarked that this is the outcome of municipal bodies’ negligence.
He added that while the court will not issue an immediate order, those who have filed petitions must also take responsibility.
