The protests were triggered by the Supreme Court’s August 11 order directing authorities to remove stray dogs from public spaces in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing an NGO, questioned whether municipal authorities had adequate infrastructure to house the dogs. File pic
Animal lovers and rights activists staged a protest in Chennai on Sunday against the Supreme Court’s directive ordering that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be shifted to shelters within eight weeks, reported ANI.
The Chennai demonstrations came just days after similar protests were held in the national capital.
On Friday, the Delhi Police registered four FIRs linked to protests organised by dog lovers on August 11 and 12 in the New Delhi district, which took place without prior permission, reported ANI. Officials said the protests went ahead despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), formerly Section 144 of the CrPC, imposed as part of Independence Day security. According to police, tensions escalated when officers attempted to disperse demonstrators, leading to clashes at some sites.
"Those who refused to leave despite repeated requests were detained. Legal action will be taken against all those found violating the law," the Delhi Police said.
As reported by ANI, videos of the Delhi protests went viral on social media. One clip showed the Station House Officer of Tughlaq Road police station being manhandled, while another captured a confrontation between a woman sub-inspector and a female protester inside a bus.
The protests were triggered by the Supreme Court’s August 11 order directing authorities to remove stray dogs from public spaces in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad and house them in shelters, with no captured animal allowed back on the streets.
On Thursday, a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria reserved its decision on petitions challenging the directive. The bench said it would issue an interim order after hearing all arguments, reported ANI.
At the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, argued that there was a “loud vocal minority” opposing the order while a “silent suffering majority” supported strict action.
"In a democracy, there is a vocal majority and one who silently suffers. We had seen videos of people eating chicken, eggs, etc., and then claiming to be animal lovers. It was an issue to be resolved. Children were dying... Sterilisation did not stop rabies; even if you immunised them, that did not stop mutilation of children," Mehta submitted, reported ANI.
He also cited World Health Organisation data, stating that in 2024, India reported 37 lakh dog bites and 305 rabies-related deaths, most of them among children under 15. "Dogs do not have to be killed... they have to be separated. Parents cannot send children out to play. Nobody is an animal hater," he added.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing an NGO, questioned whether municipal authorities had adequate infrastructure to house the dogs. "Now, dogs are picked up. But the order says once they are sterilised, do not leave them out in the community," he argued, urging the court to stay the August 11 order, reported ANI.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also opposed the directive, pointing out that rabies in Delhi was under control. He said, "Dog bites exist, but there have been zero rabies deaths in Delhi this year. Of course, bites are bad, but you cannot create a horror situation like this."
The bench observed that the issue lay in the failure of local bodies to properly implement the Animal Birth Control Rules. Justice Nath noted, "Rules and laws are framed by the Parliament, but they are not followed. Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. On the one hand, humans are suffering, and on the other hand, animal lovers are here."
In its detailed order, the Supreme Court clarified that its August 11 directive was not a "momentary impulse" but the outcome of nearly two decades of inaction by authorities on a matter directly affecting public safety, reported ANI.
As reported by ANI, a separate bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Madadev also weighed in, stressing that the matter concerns both human and animal welfare. "This is not personal," the bench said.
(With inputs from ANI)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
