LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: "City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price"

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 1018Decided 22 Aug 2025
Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025 (with W.P.(C) No. 784/2025, SLP(C) No. 14763/2024 and SLP(C) No. 17623/2025)
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

A two-Judge Bench took suo moto cognizance in July 2025 of a news report about a six-year-old girl dying of rabies after a stray dog attack in Delhi, and on 11th August 2025 issued sweeping directions requiring Delhi-NCR authorities to round up stray dogs, sterilise and immunise them under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, and never release them back onto the streets. Several NGOs and individuals working for animal welfare filed applications seeking a stay, arguing the "no re-release" direction violated the ABC Rules (which require dogs to be released back where they were picked up) and that municipal authorities lacked the infrastructure to house the huge numbers of dogs involved. The matter was placed before this three-Judge Bench to reconsider the feasibility and legality of the 11th August order.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that while the original order's intent (protecting citizens, especially children, from rabid and aggressive strays) was entirely justified, the blanket "never release back" mandate went too far and conflicted with Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules. It modified the order: dogs picked up must be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated and released back to the same locality, except dogs that are rabid, suspected rabid, or aggressive, which must be kept permanently in shelters. The Court also directed creation of designated feeding zones for strays in every municipal ward (with street feeding elsewhere prohibited and punishable), a helpline for violations, an adoption mechanism for interested citizens, and required each objecting NGO/individual to deposit money (Rs. 25,000 for individuals, Rs. 2,00,000 for NGOs) toward shelter infrastructure. It further expanded the case nationwide, impleading all States and Union Territories and transferring similar pending High Court cases to itself.

Lesson Learnt

Even a well-intentioned public safety order must stay within the boundaries of the statutory rules it is meant to serve: here, the Court corrected its own earlier order rather than let a blanket rule override the ABC Rules framework, showing that courts remain open to course-correction when practical and legal problems are demonstrated.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case