Judicial Overreach On Four Legs

Late Justice Robert H Jackson famously remarked about the US Supreme Court in Brown vs Allen (1953): “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”In the context of the latest proceedings in the Supreme Court of India regarding the

stray dogs

“problem,” one can emphatically state that the apex court is neither final and most certainly NOT infallible. Not final, because despite the issue climaxing in the All-India Stray Dogs judgment of May 9, 2024—where SC upheld the constitutional validity of the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

, 1960 and the

Animal Birth Control Rules

, 2023—the matter was resurrected by a suo motu order of the Supreme Court of India on Aug 11, 2025.Fallible, because there is no other word to describe what is currently happening in these proceedings: neither the law is being followed, nor the science heeded, and, if that were not enough, the parties are not being heard.To quickly recap, SC, in its infinite wisdom, decided to pass an order on Nov 7, 2025 directing that all stray dogs on “institutional land” must be picked up by the municipality and relocated to shelters. What is the definition of this “institutional land”? Does it include even private property so designated by the relevant town development authority? Who is to build these shelters? Where is the land for them? Where will the money come from to establish and maintain them? Who will foot the massive bill for providing food and medical care for lakhs of dogs confined in these shelters? Does impounding dogs in shelters even reduce their population? Will these shelters have round-the-clock, prison-like security to prevent dogs from escaping? What if a mass zoonotic disease spreads from these shelters to nearby human settlements?Before passing this absurd order, the Supreme Court dealt with all these questions with resounding silence. Not one word was spoken on the logistical impossibility of executing this order. Not one word on why the only scientific solution—CNVR (catch, neuter, vaccinate, and release), recommended by the WHO and followed by developed nations—was suddenly to be thrown into the dustbin.Having discarded science, the next casualty was the law governing stray dogs. The entire issue is governed by two laws: the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. Read together, they clearly state that stray dogs cannot be randomly picked up and relocated. They must be caught, sterilized, vaccinated, and released back to the same location. This position was reiterated by the Supreme Court itself in orders passed in 2015 and 2016. The law was then challenged in the All-India Stray Dogs case, and in 2024 the apex court upheld it.One is therefore left wondering how the Supreme Court can ignore a law that squarely occupies the field and pass orders—such as relocation to shelters—in complete disregard of statutory provisions. The judges are not a law unto themselves, free to ignore what Parliament legislates. As an officer of the court, it is the author’s duty to state the obvious: statutes are binding on everyone, including the Supreme Court. They do not come with a disclaimer that compliance is optional or subject to judicial whim.If the Supreme Court wished to pass orders mandating relocation, the first step would have been to strike down the PCA Act, 1960 and the ABC Rules, 2023 by declaring them unconstitutional. Only then would any scope arise for issuing alternative guidelines.But herein lies the rub: the constitutional validity of these laws is not even under challenge in the present proceedings. Even the exercise of plenary powers under Article 142 to do “complete justice” cannot justify passing orders that directly contravene statutory law. The oath taken by every Supreme Court judge explicitly states, “I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.”Yet, orders are being passed that throw the law under the bus, justified under the pretext of an “emergency.” The last time laws were abandoned in the name of emergency was in a country called Germany in the 1930s—and we all know how that ended.And now comes the coup de grâce: all these sweeping orders are being passed without even hearing the parties. The relocation order of Nov 7 was pronounced in court despite counsels present vehemently requesting that they at least be heard before any order was passed. The matter was then listed for urgent hearing on Dec 18 only to be suddenly deleted from the cause list the previous night. Upon mentioning the matter again after this deletion, all entreaties were dismissed, and the next date of hearing was fixed for Jan 7, 2026.The irony is stark. On Aug 22, SC demanded that NGOs appearing for stray dogs deposit ₹2L as a fee to be heard in the matter. Thus, despite effectively introducing a “pay to be heard” condition on the fundamental right to access the courts, the parties have still not been heard.This compels one to ask: if the Supreme Court does not follow laws enacted by Parliament, ignores scientific solutions, and refuses to hear parties even after collecting a “pay to be heard” fee, what remains of the “supreme” in the Supreme Court? And has this matter not clearly crossed the threshold from being merely a stray dogs issue into a full-blown

constitutional crisis

?The writer is advocate, Supreme Court