Senior lawyers INDIA TODAY spoke to opined that with the previous bench, of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, not hearing the other side, the principle of natural justice had not been served
In what is being viewed as a rarity, a case of suo motu cognisance of a matter has been taken away from a court bench that had just 48 hours ago delivered its order. That is how the contentious August 11 ruling on relocation of stray dogs from Delhi has unfolded, with Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai shifting the case from the two-judge Supreme Court bench, of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, to a three-judge bench.
The new bench, headed by Justice Vikram Nath and comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, on August 14, reserved its order on an interim plea seeking a stay on the earlier directive that stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) be shifted out en masse to shelters on city outskirts.
The August 11 ruling has outraged animal lovers, experts and commoners at large. Among those who have questioned its rationale and emphasised on alternative solutions are several politicians and personalities, including animal rights activist and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Trinamool Congress MP Sushmita Dev, actor John Abraham and stand-up comedian Vir Das.
Concerns have also been raised that stray dogs were being rounded up in localities even before the Supreme Court order had been uploaded. No one can tell if it is the public outcry that moved the CJI to intervene or the nature of the judgment itself.
The recording of the August 11 court proceedings, now viral, shows Justice Pardiwala rejecting any attempt by counsels representing animal lovers to intervene. “All requests for interventions are rejected,” he is seen as saying.
Senior lawyers INDIA TODAY spoke to were of the view that with the two-judge bench not hearing the other side, the principle of natural justice had not been served—audi alteram partem, which means let the other side be heard. “The refusal to entertain intervention by animalwelfare groups strikes at the fundamental right to be heard—a breach of procedural fairness (audi alteram partem),” said a senior lawyer, who did not wish to be named.
The order, said another lawyer, flies in the face of a tenet of universal law of not punishing the innocent. “Sterilised and vaccinated dogs—often the most peaceful—would be rounded up alongside more dangerous strays. This collective punishment betrays the idea that liability must be personal,” she said.
What has riled up animal lovers as well as a section of the legal community is also the two-judge bench’s comments on rules established under laws. Justice Pardiwala apparently called “absurd” the Animal Birth Control Rules, which stipulate that a community dog is to be returned to the community it was taken from after vaccination and immunisation. “rule which says that if you pick up a dog, a stray dog from one part [of the locality] to sterilise that dog and put him [back] at the same locality that’s absolutely absurd; doesn’t make any sense at all,” Justice Pardiwala is seen in the video remarking. “Why should that stray dog come back to that locality? For what? What’s the idea behind it?” the judge asked.
Following the video getting shared like wildfire among animal welfare groups, there has been widespread conversations on why such a rule exists. According to the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), relocating or removing street dogs is counterproductive and often worsens the stray animal problem.
The Animal Birth Control Module of 2025 says that when dogs are taken away, their territories become vacant, quickly attracting other dogs from neighbouring areas. Those that escape capture continue to breed, meaning the area is soon repopulated. The resulting influx of new animals leads to more dog fights—both over territory and for mating—which raises the risk of passers-by being bitten. In such unstable conditions, rabies transmission remains a threat, especially since the incoming dogs are often unvaccinated.
Another issue that the Animal Birth Control Module points out is that large-scale removals tend to target the friendlier and already sterilised dogs first, leaving behind the more aggressive, unsterilised ones. This unintended selection can change the overall temperament of the street dog population, making it harder to manage. In effect, displacement creates a volatile, fast-growing, and potentially rabies-carrying dog population, increasing man-dog conflict rather than reducing it.
In support, the AWBI quotes the World Health Organization (WHO). “Mass dog vaccination has repeatedly been shown to be effective in controlling canine rabies. On the other hand, there is no evidence that removal of dogs has a significant impact on the dog population density or the spread of rabies,” a WHO report said in 2013.
In fact, WHO has been spreading this message for long. Back in 2005, the UN health body said in a report after its coordinated projects in Ecuador, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tunisia and other ecological studies in South America and Asia: “There is no evidence that removal of dogs alone has ever had a significant impact on dog population densities or the spread of rabies.”
