On 22 August 2025, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Vikram Nath, overturned the 11 August 2025 ruling of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on the contentious issue of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR. The earlier order had directed municipal authorities to immediately begin rounding up stray dogs, set up shelters within eight weeks, and permanently relocate them from streets, colonies, and public spaces.
That ruling, while stern, was grounded in urgent concerns of public safety. However, within days of the decision, nationwide protests from animal rights groups and self-styled dog welfare activists forced a rethink. Responding to the uproar, Chief Justice of India B R Gavai constituted a new bench on 14 August 2025, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria. Their ruling, delivered on 22 August 2025, reversed the earlier order, directing that dogs picked up by municipal bodies be vaccinated, sterilised, and returned to their original locations.
Judicial Euphoria or Judicial Bias?
Justice Vikram Nath did not stop at delivering the judgment. Speaking at a Kerala conference on 30 August 2025, focused on human-wildlife conflicts, he described how the case made him widely known in civil society: “So far, I have been known in the legal fraternity for my work. But I am thankful to the stray dog case for making me known across the world. I am thankful to my CJI for allotting me this matter.”
He went further, remarking that not only dog lovers but dogs themselves had blessed him. While some may dismiss these statements as light-hearted, others view them as a troubling sign of judicial bias.
In law, bias-whether conscious or unconscious-undermines impartiality. A judge is expected to decide purely on evidence, not sentiment or personal gratification. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, reminded the Court that in 2024 alone India recorded 37.15 lakh dog bite cases-an average of 10,000 a day. Overlooking such stark statistics in favour of personal narratives about blessings from stray dogs appears, critics argue, a deviation from the principle of nemo judex in causa sua-no one should be a judge in their own cause.
Justice Pardiwala’s earlier order had been unflinching. Calling the situation “extremely grim,” the bench had argued that no sentiment-however noble-should eclipse the right to life and safety. Referring to the death of six-year-old Chavi Sharma from rabies in Delhi’s Pooth Kalan, the Court had taken suo motu cognisance of media reports and set a precedent with its “salutary order.” The bench was scathing about the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules that mandate sterilised dogs be returned to their original localities. “We fail to understand why you bring back sterilised dogs,” the order read. “Forget the rules and face reality.
These dogs are to be captured immediately by whatever means. Only then can children and senior citizens be safe.” This order, though controversial, resonated with countless families across India who had lost loved ones to stray dog attacks.
A Trail of Human Tragedies
The menace of stray dogs is not an abstract debate but a lived horror for thousands of families. In 2023, Sushma, a single mother living in Delhi’s Ruchi Vihar, lost both her sons — Anand (7) and Aditya (5) — in separate dog attacks within 48 hours. Shattered, she sent her only surviving son to live with relatives. In Kerala, 12-year-old Abbirami succumbed to dog bites in 2022, even after receiving multiple anti-rabies vaccines.
That same year, the state recorded over 1.8 lakh dog bite cases and 21 deaths by September. In Chhattisgarh, five-year-old Sukanto Manjhi was mauled to death in April 2023 by a pack of six dogs while playing outside. In Goa, in April 2025, 20-month-old Anania Shaikh was dragged and fatally attacked by seven dogs.
In Telangana, a three-year-old boy died in August 2025 after complications from a dog bite a month earlier. Most shockingly, in Patiala on 26 August 2025, a dog was filmed carrying the severed head of an infant near a hospital, sparking outrage and grief. These are not isolated incidents but part of a grim nationwide pattern. A survey by Local Circles found that 56 per cent of respondents said stray dog attacks were “common” in their areas.
The Larger Debate: Whose Rights Come First?
The central question remains: whose rights are paramount-those of humans or of stray animals? Activists argue that sterilisation and vaccination ensure coexistence. Critics counter that sterilisation has failed to curb attacks, and releasing dogs back onto the streets amounts to state-sanctioned danger.
Former Union Minister Vijay Goel voiced the frustration of many citizens: “The Supreme Court has ordered the release of dogs, but with around 2,000 dog bite cases daily, who will take responsibility-the Court, NGOs, activists feeding dogs, or the Government?” His question echoes a broader sentiment: judicial rulings must balance compassion with accountability.
Judiciary Under Scrutiny
The episode has also sparked debate on judicial credibility. By reconstituting a bench to reconsider an existing verdict within days of protests, the Court risks appearing swayed by social pressure rather than evidence. Judicial propriety requires respect for prior benches, particularly one led by Justice Pardiwala, who is in line to become Chief Justice of India. Courts, like governments, must rise above populism. Justice should be blind-not influenced by protests, activist narratives, or personal pride. As critics warn, when public safety collides with judicial sentiment, the cost is measured in human lives.
The Supreme Court’s 22 August 2025 ruling may have earned applause from dog lovers, but it has left grieving families, ordinary citizens, and legal experts questioning whether justice has truly been served.
The grim reality of over 10,000 dog bites a day cannot be wished away with sterilisation drives and hopeful blessings. The judiciary must not only appear impartial but must be firmly rooted in the principle of protecting life above all. Compassion for animals is noble, but compassion for vulnerable humans-especially children-must never be secondary. Until then, the tragic stories of victims will continue to haunt the conscience of a nation caught between misplaced sentiment and hard reality.
The writer is a legal journalist and an author