The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging its August 11 order directing the rounding up of all stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR region. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria declined to grant an interim stay on the directions to municipal bodies.

A number of senior advocates appeared for parties opposing the order, reported legal news website Bar and Bench. It quoted Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, as saying: …Children are dying... Sterilisation does not stop rabies... even if immunised..."

He said WHO data showed 305 dog bites deaths a year.

“Most of children are under age group of 15. Nobody is an animal hater... Dogs do not have to be killed... they have to be separated. Parents cannot send children out to play. Young girls are mutilated."

Arguing that the current rules offer no solution, the SG said, "Court has to intervene... this is vocal minority view vs silent majority suffering view."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the NGO Project Kindness, urged the top court to stay the August 11 order.

Justice Nath asked Sibal to point out the offending portion of the order. Sibal referred to Paragraph 11(I) of the August 11 directions, that all dogs be picked up.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra noted that other states and high courts had started issuing similar orders in light of the August 11 ruling.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued: "...SG Mehta did preemptive prejudice. Dog bites exist... but see the parliamentary answers. There are zero rabies deaths in Delhi... Of course bites are bad.. but you cannot create a horror situation like this."

Supreme Court’s observation

According to Bar and Bench, Justice Nath summed it up thus: "Parliament frames rules and laws... but not implemented. On one hand, humans are suffering and on the other hand, the animal lovers are here. Have some responsibility... all those who have filed interventions have to file affidavits and furnish evidence. All of you."

The bench then reserved its decision on the pleas for an interim stay.