Justice Nath on ‘Stray Dog’ Fame Amidst Supreme Court’s Policy Consolidation

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – In a moment of levity during a high-level legal conference, Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath remarked that the contentious stray dog case he is presiding over has brought him unexpected global recognition, extending far beyond the traditional legal circles. Speaking at the Regional Conference on Human-Wildlife Conflict, the judge humorously thanked both the stray dogs and the Chief Justice of India for the newfound fame.

“So long I have been known in the legal fraternity for the little work I do, but I am thankful to the stray dogs for making me known to the entire civil society, not only in this country but world over,” Justice Nath commented at the event organised by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA).

While delivered in a lighter vein, his comments underscore the intense public and international interest in a complex legal battle that has seen conflicting judicial orders and is now poised for a significant consolidation by the nation's apex court. The case has evolved into a critical test of balancing public safety with animal welfare, culminating in the Supreme Court’s decision to frame a comprehensive national policy.

The Judicial Tangle: Conflicting Orders Prompt CJI Intervention

The backdrop to Justice Nath's comments is a recent and notable judicial intervention. The issue escalated on August 11, when a two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued a directive with far-reaching implications. Taking suo motu cognizance of a newspaper report detailing horrific dog bite incidents in Delhi, including attacks on young children, the bench ordered the removal of all stray dogs from the Delhi-NCR region. The order stipulated that these dogs be relocated to designated shelters and, crucially, "shall not be released in the localities, even after sterilisation."

This directive marked a significant departure from the established Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules, which are centered on the principle of vaccinating, sterilizing, and returning dogs to their original territories. The order faced immediate and severe criticism from animal rights activists and welfare organizations, who termed it harsh and impractical, raising concerns about the capacity of shelters and the welfare of the relocated animals.

The ensuing legal and public outcry led to the matter being brought before the Chief Justice of India. Recognizing that the August 11 order was in direct conflict with previous rulings by coordinate benches that upheld the trap-neuter-vaccinate-return (TNVR) policy, the CJI reassigned the suo motu case. A new three-judge bench, presided over by Justice Vikram Nath, was constituted to hear the matter.

Justice Nath's Bench Reinstates TNVR Policy

On August 22, Justice Nath's bench acted decisively, staying the contentious part of the August 11 order. The bench clarified that the standard protocol must be followed: stray dogs picked up by authorities are to be sterilized, dewormed, vaccinated, and then "released back to the same area from which they were picked up."

However, the court introduced crucial caveats to address public safety concerns, specifying that this policy of release would not apply to dogs "infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies and those that display aggressive behaviour." Furthermore, the bench put a bar on the public feeding of stray dogs in random locations, directing that dedicated feeding spaces be created for this purpose to manage and regulate the practice.

This modified order effectively reinstated the foundational principles of the ABC program while attempting to mitigate the risks highlighted in the initial suo motu cognizance.

Towards a National Policy: Consolidating Litigation

Perhaps the most significant procedural development from Justice Nath’s bench was the decision to consolidate all pending litigation on the stray dog issue from various High Courts across the country. By transferring these cases to itself, the Supreme Court has signaled its intent to frame a definitive and uniform national policy.

This move is aimed at resolving the patchwork of conflicting local regulations and judicial interpretations that have complicated stray dog management for years. The court has issued notices to all states and Union Territories, seeking their input to formulate a cohesive framework. This consolidation is a critical step for legal practitioners in municipal and administrative law, as it will likely result in a binding national precedent that will shape how local bodies handle human-animal coexistence.

Speaking on the broader theme of the conference, Justice Nath connected the issue to constitutional principles, noting, "our constitution lays down the framework within which we should seek solutions for the growing conflict with wildlife." This sentiment was echoed by other senior judges at the event. Justice B.V. Nagarathna referenced Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, which mandates that citizens have a fundamental duty "to protect and improve the natural environment and have compassion for all living creatures," warning against an increasingly human-centric approach to environmental issues.

International Recognition and a Lighter Note

Reflecting on the case's high profile, Justice Nath shared an anecdote from a recent 'Law Asia POLA Summit.' "The presidents of the lawyers association were here. So they started asking questions about stray dogs matter. I felt very elated …well people outside India also know me," he recounted.

He concluded his remarks with a good-humored quip that has captured media attention. "And I have also been receiving messages saying that apart from dog lovers, dogs are also giving me blessings and good wishes. In addition to human blessings and good wishes, I have their good wishes also."

While his comments provided a moment of lightheartedness, they also serve as a reminder of the profound social and ethical dimensions of the cases that come before the judiciary. As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on a national policy, the legal community watches closely, anticipating a landmark decision that will impact millions of lives—both human and animal—across India.