The sterilisation and vaccination of stray dogs are not just animal welfare measures – they are the centrepiece of India’s legally mandated strategy to manage the street dog population and prevent rabies. The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, require that community dogs be sterilised, vaccinated, and released back into their original territories. The law explicitly forbids the relocation of such dogs.

Yet, the Supreme Court’s order on August 11 directing the removal of all community dogs from Delhi-NCR streets has upended this framework, say animal rights activists. The order has been denounced not only as inhumane but also as legally unsound. Another bench has now reserved its verdict in a plea challenging the court’s directive.

Among the critics of the previous order is Supreme Court advocate Nanita Sharma – an animal rights activist and founder of the NGO Conference for Human Rights – who has been fighting a legal battle over the government’s failure to implement sterilisation rules in the capital. In this conversation with Newslaundry before a three-judge bench reserved its order, Sharma dissected what she called an “absurd” order, explained how it contradicts established law, and warned of its impact on both public safety and animal welfare.

Excerpts from the conversation:

How does the Supreme Court’s recent ruling conflict with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which mandate sterilisation and release of stray dogs back to their original locations?

The ABC (Dogs) Rules, 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, are guidelines issued by the Central Government to manage the population of stray dogs. These rules emphasise the sterilisation and vaccination of stray dogs as a humane method to control their numbers and curb the spread of rabies. Notably, the ABC Rules prohibit the relocation or removal of sterilised and vaccinated dogs from their original territories. It is an absurd ruling, which basically says, forget about the law and the already established rules, but do what the Supreme Court is instructing. 

Can a Supreme Court directive override delegated legislation framed under a Central Act, such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960?

The rules, the law, and the Constitution are already in place. Therefore, any orders or rulings must operate within the framework of existing statutory provisions. It is not permissible to act in contradiction to established law. If there is an intention to change or nullify a law, the proper course of action lies with Parliament, which has full authority to amend or repeal legislation. However, unless Parliament has taken such steps or the Supreme Court has explicitly declared a law or rule null and void, the existing legal provisions remain valid and binding. As such, passing orders that go against these established rules is not legally tenable.

Is this new judgment legally overriding or in conflict with the 2024 Supreme Court ruling on a similar matter?

They have completely disregarded all the rulings of the Supreme Court…This is not a matter of ignoring a single judgment; it involves a series of rulings, a series of authoritative judgments…

Moreover, the government authorities’ failure to comply with these legal mandates means they are not performing their statutory duties. As a result, there has been unchecked growth in the stray dog population, which has led to increased conflict within communities and a rise in incidents such as dog attacks and dog fights. This inaction represents a clear violation of the responsibilities set forth under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as well as the ABC (Dogs) Rules, 2023, which have been framed under the provisions of this Act. These laws are not optional; they are binding, and failure to implement them has tangible, harmful consequences for public safety and animal welfare alike.

Could the ruling be challenged for violating Article 21 of the Constitution…?

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life, and over time, this has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to extend beyond mere survival to include the right to live with dignity. Importantly, this right is not limited to human beings alone. In the landmark judgment Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja, the Supreme Court explicitly held that Article 21 applies to all living beings, thereby recognising animals as beneficiaries of the fundamental right to life with dignity.

In this judgment, the court emphasised that animals possess intrinsic rights and are entitled to a life free from unnecessary suffering. It further laid down five essential freedoms for animals – freedom from hunger, thirst, and malnutrition; freedom from fear and distress; freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behavior. These freedoms are critical to ensuring that animals are treated as sentient beings, deserving of compassion and care.

In addition, the Constitution, under Article 48A and Article 51A(g), places a duty on both the State and its citizens to protect the environment and to show compassion towards all living creatures. Therefore, individuals who feed, care for, or look after animals are not merely acting out of charity or emotion; they are fulfilling a constitutional obligation. Their actions are in line with the constitutional vision that mandates kindness and humane treatment towards all forms of life.

Several activists claim the order was passed without hearing all the stakeholders…

They could have, and should have, communicated the matter to the appropriate authorities, such as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the Central Government, the State Government, and even to NGOs actively involved in sterilisation and animal birth control programs. Most importantly, they ought to have informed the Animal Welfare Board of India, the statutory body responsible for overseeing animal welfare. However, the Board has failed to fulfill its duties, and there appears to be no effort made to involve the institutions that are legally and practically responsible for addressing these concerns.

Furthermore, the process has lacked basic procedural fairness. No notice has been issued to the other side, denying them the opportunity to present their version of the facts. To make matters worse, the position taken is that no intervenors will be allowed to participate. 

If anyone wants to approach the court against the ruling, how can they do it? 

They cannot file a new PIL challenging this particular ruling directly, as it arose from a suo moto cognisance case. However, if an existing case is already pending, such as the one my organisation filed two years ago in the Supreme Court, which is now scheduled to be listed soon, any new ruling in that matter could potentially differ from the current decision. My case, which concerns the improper implementation of the sterilisation program in Delhi, was initially disposed of by the Delhi High Court. Following that, we approached the Supreme Court, where the matter remains pending. This ongoing case provides an opportunity for a fresh examination of the issues involved.

Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.