"Immediate...stay on this order": Animal activist Divya Puri on SC order for stray dog

"The order which was passed is incorrect from the right start. In August 2025, they issued an order without hearing us. Then they said that if you want to intervene, you have to give Rs 2 lakh, and we will listen to the NGOs. We paid and intervened, but, again, in the order passed in November, we were not heard," she criticised.

Referring to the Supreme Court order, she said, "The order says to put a certain section of dogs into shelters, which includes educational institutes, bus stops and all these places."

She highlighted that there are no shelters to house these dogs, and the ABC units available are not well-equipped to keep stray dogs in the long term.

"We have no shelters in any city. We have ABC units where the dogs are sterilised and returned. They cannot keep them for a lifetime.", she claimed. She deemed the order "impractical" because there were no shelters.

Speaking on their demands from the Court, she mentioned, "The immediate ask is to have a stay on this order. Then we have to work with the parties who are interested in it. That includes Municipal parties, AWBI (Animal Welfare Board of India) and NGOs who are looking after these animals to come on a mid-ground."

She alleged that the issue with dogs has not yet been identified, citing several reasons for this order, including the rising number of dog bites. She claimed that the data for rabies and dog bites is "completely falsified and incorrect."

She termed Animal Birth Control (ABC) the "only proven scientific method" that returns dogs after sterilisation to their territory.

Puri accused the Municipal Bodies of failing for 21 years and said that the dogs are being penalised as a result. She claimed that the suo moto case was taken up after a young girl died of rabies, as reported by a newspaper. She said that the girl was suffering from an autoimmune disease, according to their investigation.

"We spoke to the family, and we realised that the girl did not die of rabies but an autoimmune condition, Adem. The surprising part is that no government hospital did not diagnosed it, but an MRI by a private hospital revealed the fact", she claimed.

She alleged that the whole situation was blown out of proportion, and the correction has been made in the newspaper.

In its order dated November 7, 2025, the Supreme Court, while taking into consideration the "alarming rise of dog bite incidents", ordered all states and Union Territories (UTs) on Friday to ensure the removal of all stray dogs from every educational institution, hospital, public sports complexes, bus stands, railway stations, etc.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria stated that all these institutions and places must be adequately fenced to prevent stray dogs from entering.The stray dogs should not be released to the same spot from which they were picked up, the bench ordered.

It also said that permitting their return would "frustrate the very purpose" of securing such premises and addressing public safety concerns."They will not be released back in the same area since releasing them back will frustrate the very purpose of the directive of the court," said the bench.

Earlier, the apex court had taken a suo moto cognisance of the menace of stray dogs across the country. A three-judge bench on August 22 had modified a two-judge bench's August 11 order, which had directed the rounding up of all stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR and prohibited their release from dog shelters.

The August 22 order stated that the stray dogs would be released back to the same area after sterilisation and immunisation, except for dogs that are infected with rabies or exhibit aggressive behaviour.

It had also restricted public feeding of stray dogs and directed the MCD to create dedicated feeding spaces in each municipal ward. It had further ordered that persons found feeding the dogs in contravention of its direction shall be liable to be proceeded with under the relevant framework.

The apex court had also expanded the scope of the proceedings on the menace of stray dogs and impleaded all states and Union Territories as parties to the case. The August 11 order was limited to the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) area only.

The three-judge bench order came on pleas seeking a stay of the August 11 order of a two-judge bench directing the removal of all stray dogs from localities in the Delhi-NCR region and their placement in shelter homes.

On August 11, the top court ordered that all localities in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram, and Faridabad be made free of stray dogs, with no compromise. Additionally, it made clear that no captured animal would be released back into the streets.

In the detailed order, it was clarified that its directive was not driven by a "momentary impulse"; instead, it followed thorough, careful deliberation, and the relevant authorities have consistently failed to address a serious issue that directly impacts public safety for over two decades.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and R Madadev said it has decided to take the matter into its own hands because of the authorities' systematic failure over the past two decades to address an issue that strikes at the heart of public safety.

It had said that the directions given by it, as a court which functions for the welfare of the people, are both in the interest of humans as well as dogs and "this is not personal".

It noted that, according to data on the Press Information Bureau's website, there were 37,15,713 reported dog bites in the country, and in Delhi alone, 25,201. (ANI)