On Friday, the Supreme Court didn’t hold back when it came to Sharmila Tagore’s arguments against a blanket solution for India’s stray dog problem. The judges called her stance “completely devoid of reality.”
Sharmila Tagore gets pulled by Supreme Court
Tagore’s lawyer tried to push for a more nuanced approach, pointing out that not every stray dog is dangerous. They even mentioned a dog called Goldie who’s lived peacefully on the AIIMS campus for years.
The idea was to form an expert committee to figure out which dogs are actually aggressive and which aren’t, instead of just rounding up every stray.
But the court wasn’t buying it. “You’re out of touch with reality,” one judge said. “Don’t glorify these dogs in hospitals.”
The bench questioned whether Goldie had ever been inside an operating theatre and pointed out that street dogs often carry ticks, which could be disastrous in a hospital environment. “We’ll let you know the reality of what’s being argued,” they said.
‘Please Be Realistic, This Is India’
Trying to find a middle ground, Tagore’s lawyer brought up systems used in countries like Georgia and Armenia, colour-coded collars to identify aggressive dogs.
The court shot back, “What’s the population of those countries? Be realistic. This is India.”
Later, the Supreme Court clarified it never ordered the removal of all street dogs. The judges said stray animals should be handled according to the animal birth control (ABC) rules.
Tagore’s petition argued that India needs more than just the ABC rules to fix the problem. She called for science and psychology to play a bigger role, with targeted solutions catch, treat, and release rather than a one-size-fits-all policy.
Her lawyer summed it up: “The answer is science, psychology, and a module-specific framework.” But for now, the court seems far from convinced.
What is the stray dogs case?
Today, in the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court called out municipal authorities for not dealing with the stray dog problem.
The judges also pointed out that dogs can pick up on fear, and they’re more likely to attack someone who’s scared or has already been bitten. Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria were on the bench for this hearing.
