When I planned to revive this blog in 2026, little did I know that it would begin on such a serious note, with the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent street animals, and their caretakers, being at stake.

In case you have somehow managed to cocoon yourself and remain oblivious of the chaos and horror that has been unfolding all over India in the last few months, let me first quickly catch you up on the facts.

A newspaper report in the Times of India in July, claimed a young girl was bitten by a street dog and died of rabies. The report was subsequently proven wrong in that the poor girl did not die of rabies.

The Supreme Court of India then took it upon itself in August 2025, to pass a suo moto order, rather dramatically titled “Stray Dog Menace – Children Pay Price”, and unilaterally ordered all dogs across the country to be rounded up and put into shelters. Amidst nationwide and international protests from ecologists,environmentalists, veterinarians, caregivers, feeders, etc., this order was later rescinded. But then again, on 7th November, the same three-judge bench decided to pass an order to pick up dogs from numerous types of institutions and place them permanently into shelters, thereby showing that one can’t read a judge’s mood as to when he will get up one morning and decide to pass an aggressive order…

Overnight, stray dogs became the country’s No.1 problem – greater than the fact that the Air Quality Index spent enough time in the 1000’s to cause lasting health issues for millions of citizens; or that fresh and more sickening incidents of rape continue to occur across the country,etc. etc. The decision of the Court to butt in, curiously coincided with Delhi’s Chief Minister among other politicos of the ruling party, saying they wanted to get rid of the dogs. When the entire country rose in protest for the second time, against the November order, the Court agreed to “listen” to the Defence, for a small sum of Rs.2 lakhs per party!

The Supreme Court’s last three hearings on the matter, seem to suggest that at this point in our Democracy, it seems that the coffin is already sealed and secure and we’re just hammering in some extra nails for good measure.

The point of the hearings was to allow the experts – the people who know something about dogs, the feeders and caregivers and ecologists and animal behaviour experts – to provide solutions to this “menace” that has suddenly overtaken every other pressing issue in this country. But anyone who has been following the hearings would question, Is the Court really looking for a solution at all? Was it ever about public safety? It doesn’t seem that way. When the apex Court of a country aggressively heckles many of the most highly respected and senior lawyers of the country, berating them and scoffing at them, it does not seem like a just hearing in any way.

When a lady counsel apprises the Court that women feeders are being beaten up, molested, their houses broken into by mobs, and the Court’s response is “File an FIR”, “Go to the High Court”, “Don’t make noise about this here”, the public hears “Go ahead”. This has everything to do with this case and it is the Supreme Court’s problem because all this, and much worse, is happening as a direct fallout of their order, their tone, their apathy. When a lawyer states the very well-established fact that a way to counter aggression as well as control population is by sterilising the dog and returning him/her to their original territory, and the Supreme Court scoffs and says, “Perhaps we should also give them counselling”, it shows a complete lack of understanding of animals and animal behaviour and the fact that there is actually such a thing as training, not unlike counselling. More disturbingly though, it shows an unwillingness to learn about dogs, or what the issue really is, or why ABC has not been as successful as it should have by now, or indeed why cruelty to animals is wrong, why it is important to feed animals on the street, why caregivers and feeders are the best possible allies in this endeavour to reduce human-animal conflict or bring down dog populations, or why breeders should be banned completely. Despite excellent, scientifically backed, practical and sound arguments by the country’s best lawyers representing concerned citizens from every diaspora in the country, experts and caregivers, for solutions that are not only effective but humane, the three judges sat like three high-school bullies scoffing and mocking, with an occasional, sarcastic Indian head-shake and a “Very good, very good. Keep doing the good work”, to anyone who claimed to be an animal caregiver or feeder.

Not even the counsel fighting for orphans was spared. She told the Court that when she leaves a 13-yr-old orphan girl alone on a railway platform, she feels slightly more comfortable knowing that the girl has a stray dog sleeping by her side. She spoke of the lack of orphanages in the majority of districts in Uttar Pradesh and pleaded that the children be given shelter first, rather than losing their only protectors- the loyal dogs on the street. The Court’s jab came late, but come it did, when the next lawyer spoke of incentivizing the adoption of street dogs, to which the Court said, “Are you for real?”, going on to say they expected him to argue that orphan children on the streets should be adopted.

A lady spoke of how she had been mauled by a dog once, but that, being someone who understands animals, she took the time to try to find out what had made the dog bite her. She found that the dog had long been the victim of cruelty and so, she did the unthinkable- she adopted the very dog that had bitten her. In her moving argument, the lady went on to say that for the 9 years that the dog lived with her family, she was nothing but gentle, loving and loyal to all the members, including the lady’s young children. While most would have found this a brilliant case for a. making laws against Cruelty to Animals far stricter or b. Promoting animal sensitivity and compassion, especially amongst youth, the Court appeared instead to be wholly unimpressed and uninterested, I daresay after realising in whose favour the lady was arguing.

All through these hearings, there has been “othering”, a classic political tool, we know, but now it seems, a judicial one too? Animal lovers were referred to by the Court as “‘so-called’ animal lovers”. This so-calledism is really getting a bit old. Perhaps they are so used to legalese that they forget common lay man parlance. Surely, they are not questioning the fact that these people love animals? Whether they like other human beings- maybe, whether they are good people- okay, but the fact that they are paying to be represented in Court, pleading for the animals they have been sterilising, feeding, clothing, medicating and loving like their own children leaves no ambiguity about their love for animals. The Court obviously has still not been able to comprehend the essential and laudable role these people play, in making dogs comfortable, trusting, secure and thereby safe for others to be around. The Court indicated that these people should be penalised for dog bites, that if they were so concerned they should take the dogs home or go and work at the proposed shelters. What they should have said, really, was a simple “Thank You”.

What it comes down to is this:

We all want the same thing (I think)- for there to be fewer dogs on the streets and for dogs not to bite people. To achieve that, experts say, promote ABC, fortify anti-cruelty laws, ban breeders, encourage adoption, and educate communities. That is the humane and only effective way to achieve this.

The Court says, remove the dogs. Never mind that it’s not effective, and as for minimising unnecessary trauma and suffering, well, all that be damned. What’s next? Put a group of techies in charge of the choreography on Republic Day? Let farmers decide your defence strategy? No, because they know nothing about that. So why should the “Stray Dog Menace”, be left to be solved by people who have no understanding whatsoever of animals or ecology?

It does not behove the Supreme Court of a country to speak in such divisive tones, to condone violence, to berate senior counsels and to make a complete farce of a hearing for a problem they have created- yes, they, the so-called “justices”.

And what of the so-called Intelligentsia of this country? Hopefully by now, you would have realised that this has very little to do with dogs at all and that whether you are a dog-lover or not, if you are silent, it means you too condone the illegal killing of dogs in Telangana and Hyderabad, the rapes and violence and torture. That’s not being neutral, that’s sadistic. If you have concerns,call any animal caregiver in your colony and discuss them without acrimony. Stop fuelling flames by bitching on your RWA chats. Stop adding to the problem and be a part of the solution, if indeed you are looking for one. And if you happen to be someone who knows me and maybe considers me a friend, if you still cannot find it in you to speak against the unlawful treatment of animals today and if you still contribute to the petty harassment of caregivers, then well, it was nice knowing you, but I guess I never really did.