When the Supreme Court’s August 2025 order on street dogs dropped, it landed with all the subtlety of a bulldozer in a butterfly garden. In one sweep, the Bench declared that every single community dog in Delhi-NCR must be rounded up, carted off to shelters, and never set paw on its old street again dismissing, without ceremony, any voice of dissent from animal welfare groups. The problem? India already has a law for this, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 and that law says precisely the opposite: sterilise, vaccinate, and return them to their home turf, not exile them indefinitely. In the courtroom drama of “public safety versus compassion,” the scriptwriter here seems to have thrown the statute book out of the window.
Even more curious is the plot twist where the Bench decided not to hear the very stakeholders the law empowers the activists, NGOs, and caregivers who, under Rule 20 of the ABC Rules, are meant to help local bodies manage dogs humanely.
Natural justice that old and stubborn principle that everyone affected gets to speak was unceremoniously muzzled. And by using Article 142 to bulldoze over clear statutory commands, the Court stepped into legislative shoes it isn’t meant to wear. The result is an order that not only defies the letter of the law but also the logic of rabies control, animal welfare, and basic procedural fairness. It’s hard to call that “complete justice” when it’s missing so many pieces.
And then there’s the small matter of how this sweeping order is supposed to work outside the air-conditioned confines of a courtroom. Delhi-NCR alone has an estimated 3–5 lakh street dogs; across India, the number soars into crores. There are no existing shelter facilities even remotely capable of housing such numbers let alone providing food, water, veterinary care, and exercise. Imagine cramming thousands of territorial, stressed animals into a single confined space: fights will erupt, diseases will spread, and the cruelty of the scene would be enough to turn any citizen’s stomach. If this order is actually enforced, it demands to be documented every overcrowded cage, every emaciated animal to reveal the barbarity that a misreading of “public interest” can unleash. And here’s the chilling domino effect: once the apex court sets this precedent, every High Court in India can point to it, issuing identical edicts in their states. Suddenly, crores of community dogs across India face an uncertain fate, spirited away from the only territories they’ve ever known, to…where exactly? A slow death in overcrowded compounds? This is not the vision of India Mahatma Gandhi had in mind when he said the greatness of a nation is judged by the way it treats its animals. Orders like this don’t just sideline our laws; they erode our values.
Having seen the human and moral dimensions of this order, the logistical impossibility, the looming cruelty, and the national values it tramples, it’s time to strip away the emotion and examine the cold, hard law. Because beyond the pathos of caged dogs and silenced activists lies an equally damning story: this August 2025 diktat is on a collision course with the very statutes, rules, and constitutional principles it is sworn to uphold. From defying the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, to misusing Article 142 as a legislative shortcut, and even discarding the basic right to be heard, the order is not just unwise, it is unlawful. Let’s step into the legal trenches and see exactly where, and how, it breaks the law.
When the Law Says “Return” and the Court Says “Remove”
India already has a very specific, well-thought-out legal regime for dealing with community dogs, and it’s not something drafted on the back of a napkin. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (“PCA Act”) is the mother statute, criminalising unnecessary pain or suffering and creating the Animal Welfare Board of India. Under its authority, the Union Government notified the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (“ABC Rules”), replacing the earlier 2001 dog-only rules. These Rules are unambiguous: sterilise, vaccinate, and return the dog to the same place it was found no mass relocations, no indefinite warehousing, no “disappear them to somewhere else” policy. Relocation is banned unless strictly for medical reasons, and euthanasia is allowed only for incurably ill or mortally wounded animals, certified by a veterinarian. The Rules even require local bodies to form Animal Welfare Committees, designate feeding spots, and work with resident welfare associations to manage and protect these animals.
The Supreme Court’s August 2025 order doesn’t just overlook this framework; it drives a truck right through it. By calling the release-back model “absurd” and ordering all dogs to be rounded up and permanently confined, the Bench has essentially legislated its own dog policy in direct conflict with the central law. That’s not just bad animal welfare, it’s ultra vires. The Court’s own earlier orders in the AWBI v. PEST case (2015 interim and 2024 disposal) had told authorities to follow the Act and Rules to the letter, stressing “no indiscriminate killings” and compassion as a constitutional value. Those words seem to have been forgotten in August 2025, replaced by a blanket, one-size-fits-all directive that ignores the carefully calibrated, legally binding ABC Rules.
Why the August 2025 Order is Per Incuriam
In legal language, a judgment is per incuriam when it is delivered in ignorance of a binding statute, rule, or precedent. That is exactly the flaw running through the Supreme Court’s August 2025 stray-dog order. The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and carrying the force of law, could not be clearer: community dogs, once sterilised and vaccinated, must be released back into the same locality. Relocation is barred except for narrow veterinary reasons; euthanasia is permitted only for incurably ill or mortally wounded animals, after certification. Yet the August order does the polar opposite banning release altogether and ordering the permanent detention of every dog in Delhi-NCR, without even engaging with these binding provisions.
Worse, the Court had only a year earlier, in May 2024, closed the long-running AWBI v. PEST litigation with the emphatic direction that authorities must act “in the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation” i.e., the ABC Rules, 2023, and reiterated that there could be “no indiscriminate killings of canines.” Under the Dawoodi Bohra (case) principle, a coordinate bench cannot quietly overturn a prior bench’s holding; it must refer the matter to a larger bench if it disagrees. No such referral happened. In ignoring the Rules and sidestepping its own controlling precedent, the August 2025 bench not only exceeded its Article 142 powers, which cannot be used to supplant existing law, but also placed its directions firmly in per incuriam territory. In plainer terms: this is an order built on shaky legal ground, because it was issued as if the governing law and precedent simply didn’t exist.
Per Incuriam in One Minute
What it means: Latin for “through lack of care.” In law, it’s when a court gives a decision without noticing or applying a binding law or precedent. Such a ruling has no lasting authority and can be ignored or overturned.
Why it matters here:
• The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 say sterilised, vaccinated street dogs must be returned to the same place — no blanket removals.
• In May 2024, the Supreme Court itself ordered that all stray-dog action must follow those Rules.
• The August 2025 order ignored both, creating a brand-new “no release” policy from scratch.Bottom line: When the highest court rules without looking at the law already on the books and its own recent decision that’s per incuriam. And per incuriam orders are built to fall.
Article 142: A Power with Boundaries
Much is made of Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court’s power to do “complete justice”, but that power isn’t a magic wand for rewriting laws that Parliament and the Executive have already put in place. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, the Court itself held that Article 142 cannot be used to supplant substantive law or achieve indirectly what can’t be done directly. The Vishaka guidelines, often cited as precedent for judicial innovation, applied only because there was a legislative vacuum. Here, there is no vacuum. We have the PCA Act, and we have the ABC Rules, 2023. They occupy the field, and they say the opposite of what the August 2025 order mandates.
Using Article 142 to permanently override these Rules is not “filling in the gaps”; it’s replacing the entire policy framework with a judge-made one, without the constitutional safeguards of parliamentary debate, public consultation, or executive rule-making. That’s a separation-of-powers problem, plain and simple. It’s also an invitation for future Benches to discard any inconvenient statute by simply declaring their own “public interest” model. That’s a precedent far more dangerous than any stray dog.
Natural Justice, Muzzled
Perhaps the most jarring procedural flaw is the Court’s outright refusal to hear the very people and organisations the law makes part of the solution. Under Rule 20 of the ABC Rules, animal welfare organisations, resident welfare associations, and local bodies must work together to manage feeding, conflict resolution, and humane treatment. Yet in August 2025, when animal-rights activists and NGOs sought to intervene, the Bench declined, declaring it would not hear them “in the larger interest of the people.”
That is a textbook violation of the principle of audi alteram partem the right to be heard before a decision that affects you is made. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed, in cases like Maneka Gandhi and A.K. Kraipak, that procedural fairness is the rule, and any departure must be justified by necessity and proportionality. Here, there was no such justification just a sweeping exclusion that silenced precisely the voices with statutory standing and field expertise. In other words, the decision was not just substantively unlawful but also procedurally unfair.
Public Health and Practicality Ignored
Beyond the black-letter law, the order is also scientifically unsound. The World Health Organization, the World Organisation for Animal Health, and India’s own public health authorities all agree: mass removal doesn’t work. The only sustainable way to reduce bites and eliminate dog-mediated rabies is through sterilisation, high vaccination coverage, and community engagement. The Union Government itself told Parliament in 2024 that ABC is “the only way” to control stray dog populations. By breaking that cycle removing sterilised, vaccinated dogs from their territories and replacing them with unvaccinated newcomers the Court’s directive risks undoing years of rabies-control work and escalating the very problems it claims to solve.
Cruelty in the Name of Order
Confined dogs, many of them healthy and sterilised, will be crammed together in overcrowded pens. Dogs are territorial and social in structured ways; removing them from familiar surroundings and forcing them into dense, alien environments creates severe stress. The stress triggers aggression, fights, and injuries. Without space to move and proper exercise, physical health collapses. Without sufficient resources, food and water will be irregular; the weakest will starve first. Overcrowding is a breeding ground for parvovirus, distemper, and mange highly contagious and often fatal diseases in dog populations.
This isn’t hypothetical it is exactly what global veterinary science warns against. The World Health Organization and World Organisation for Animal Health have consistently said that mass removal or detention of street dogs is ineffective for public health and cruel in outcome. In India’s climate, in underfunded municipal facilities, the cruelty is magnified: poor ventilation, extreme heat, and minimal post-operative care will turn “shelters” into death camps in all but name.
The inhumanity is not only in the physical suffering. The August order severs dogs from their territories and caregivers the same caregivers the ABC Rules, 2023, legally recognise as part of the coexistence framework. Many of these animals have lived in the same lanes for years, bonded with residents who feed them, monitor their health, and often pay for sterilisation and vaccination out of pocket. To rip them away, with no possibility of return, is to deliberately erase those bonds and inflict psychological trauma on sentient beings the Supreme Court itself once recognised as having a right to life under Article 21 (AWBI v. Nagaraja, 2014).
Finally, scale makes cruelty unavoidable. Even if authorities wanted to provide decent care, the logistics of feeding, cleaning, and treating lakhs of dogs daily are impossible in the present system. That’s why the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 were designed to work on the street, not in cages because on the street, sterilised and vaccinated dogs live in stable packs, keep unvaccinated newcomers out, and require far fewer resources. The August 2025 order replaces that humane, lawful, and scientifically sound system with a blueprint for institutionalised suffering on a scale India has never seen.
Why This Matters for Every State
While this order currently targets Delhi-NCR, its implications are national. High Courts across India look to the Supreme Court for guidance, and once this “zero release” precedent is in place, it will be tempting for state governments to use it as a shortcut especially where public pressure over dog bites runs high. That means crores of dogs across India could face the same fate: permanent removal to non-existent shelters, overcrowded holding pens, disease outbreaks, and slow deaths out of public view. The cruelty would be industrial in scale, and the damage to India’s constitutional and cultural values, values that Mahatma Gandhi himself linked to the treatment of animals, would be incalculable.
The Road Back to Law and Compassion
The August 2025 order is not just a misstep; it’s a rupture, tearing through statutory protections, constitutional boundaries, and centuries-old values about our duty to the vulnerable. It is precisely in moments like this that the rule of law must be our compass. The PCA Act and the ABC Rules, 2023, are not ornamental suggestions; they are binding commands, built on evidence, experience, and hard-won consensus between courts, governments, and civil society. If the highest court can disregard them so casually, then tomorrow it might be a different statute, a different group, a different set of rights and none of us will be safe from ad hoc justice.
India’s greatness has never been measured by the scale of its buildings or the size of its GDP alone; it has been measured by the way it treats those who cannot speak for themselves. Gandhi’s warning was not a metaphor, it was a test of our moral character. Allowing this order to stand, unchallenged and unquestioned, would be to fail that test spectacularly. The way forward is clear: the order must be reviewed, recalled, or read down so that the law, and compassion, are restored to their rightful place. Citizens, activists, and lawyers alike must speak, document, and litigate, not just for the dogs whose lives are at stake, but for the values and legal principles that make India a nation worth calling “great.”
Litigation roadmap and reliefs
Here are the legal steps that are available as of now :
Filing Review/Modification/Recall in the Supreme Court
Grounds:
(a) Error apparent—directions contrary to PCA/ABC 2023;
(b) Violation of natural justice—categorical refusal to hear necessary parties;
(c) Per incuriam / inconsistency with binding coordinate-bench orders (2015 interim; 2024 disposal) requiring adherence to the Act/Rules.
Article 142 restraint: reiterate SCBA line that 142 cannot supplant the ABC Rules 2023.
Interim prayer pending review Suspend the “no-release” part; direct continuation/scale-up of ABC (SVR) and rabies vaccination with monthly compliance reports (mirroring 2015 directions on infrastructure and data).
If necessary, curative (limited doorway) where review fails and natural-justice denial is demonstrable.
On the ground (without courting contempt) Prepare status affidavits showing ABC capacity, sterilisation/vaccination throughout, designated feeding points/Rule-20 committees, and helpline performance—i.e., demonstrate statutory compliance now, not a vacuum
LawUmbrella 
LikeLike