The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the growing emphasis on incentivising adoption of stray dogs, asking why similar efforts were not being made for orphaned children living on the streets. The remark came during a hearing on issues relating to stray dogs, where the court expressed concern that extensive arguments were being made for animals, but not for human beings.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria made the observation while responding to submissions by a counsel representing an elderly dog lover who had proposed a policy to incentivise adoption of stray dogs.
Till now no one has argued so long for human beings
Senior Counsel Vaibhav Gaggar, appearing for an 80-year-old dog lover, argued that a national policy should be framed to promote adoption of stray dogs.
“I represent an 80-year-old lady who lives on the street. She takes care of 200 dogs. Known as dog Amma in Delhi. A policy for adoptions should be considered – incentivisation. There are many counsels here who have 8-10 dogs at home who are Indie dogs. A national adoption mission may be implemented. Incentivisation could be something as simple as sterilisation and vaccination,” Gaggar argued.
The submission drew a sharp response from the Bench, particularly Justice Sandeep Mehta, who questioned the priorities being reflected in the arguments before the court.
“Are you for real? A young counsel just showed us statistics of orphan children on the streets. Perhaps some lawyers could argue for adoption of those children. Since the year 2011 since I was elevated (as a judge), these are the longest arguments I have heard. And till now no one has argued so long for human beings,” Justice Sandeep Mehta retorted.
“These are the longest arguments I have heard. And till now no one has argued so long for human beings” – Supreme Court
Background
The matter had gained national attention last year after a Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs. The directions triggered widespread protests by animal rights groups and were later modified by the present Bench.
Under the modified directions, the focus was shifted to vaccination, sterilisation and release of stray dogs in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. Since then, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of the case to address broader public safety concerns.
Also Watch:
Directions on stray animals, dog bites and public safety
On November 7, 2025, as an interim measure, the Supreme Court directed States and the National Highways Authority of India to remove stray animals from highways and institutional areas such as hospitals, schools and educational institutions across the country.
The court also ordered fencing of government and private educational and health institutions within eight weeks to prevent stray dog bites. It further directed that dogs picked up from such institutional areas should not be released back into the same premises.
During the hearing on December 7, the Bench flagged the increasing number of dog bite incidents in the country and criticised municipal authorities and other local bodies for failing to effectively implement the Animal Birth Control rules.
