‘Completely Devoid From Reality’: Supreme Court Rebukes Sharmila Tagore’s Plea on Stray Dogs

Top court stresses public safety, rejects romanticising of strays in sensitive spaces like hospitals

The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up actor Sharmila Tagore during a hearing on the issue of stray dogs, calling the arguments made on her behalf “completely devoid from reality.” The court made it clear that while animal welfare remains important, public safety and health risks, especially in sensitive institutional spaces like hospitals, cannot be ignored or downplayed.

The hearing took place before a three-judge bench that is examining concerns related to stray dogs in institutional and public premises. The case is part of a suo motu matter initiated by the court last year following reports of rising dog bite incidents, particularly among children, and the growing risk of rabies in urban areas.

Sharmila Tagore appeared as one of the applicants through her counsel, who argued that the problem of stray dogs must be approached scientifically and psychologically. The lawyer suggested that only dogs identified as “aggressive” by an expert committee should be put to sleep and that not all strays should be treated as dangerous.

“We suggest an expert committee for considering the behaviour of dogs… Let’s see the difference between aggressive and normal dogs,” Tagore’s lawyer submitted, while citing an example of a dog named Goldie that had reportedly lived peacefully in the AIIMS campus for several years.

The bench, however, was unimpressed by the reasoning. Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned the practicality of such examples and warned against generalising isolated cases. “One example cannot support the entire argument,” the court observed.

Referring to the suggestion that dogs could safely exist in hospital environments, Justice Mehta reacted sharply. “Any dog in the street is likely to have ticks. Imagine if they enter hospitals. Arguments being made are far removed from reality. Even slight suggestion that dogs should be allowed in hospitals… don’t try to glorify them,” he said.

He further remarked, “You are completely removed from reality. Don’t try to glorify these dogs in hospitals. We will tell you at the end of arguments the reality.”

The court’s remarks underlined its concern about infection risks, patient safety, and hygiene in medical institutions. The judges made it clear that compassion for animals cannot override the right of citizens to safe and clean public spaces, especially places where vulnerable people are treated.

Tagore’s counsel also proposed a system of colour-coded collars to identify dogs that had bitten people, suggesting that such methods are used in other countries. Justice Mehta responded bluntly, asking, “What’s the population in those countries? Be realistic.” The court pointed out that copying foreign models without considering India’s population density and stray dog numbers would be impractical.

The hearing also saw arguments from senior advocates and intervenors representing different viewpoints. Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi cautioned the court against entering areas that require specialised domain expertise without adequate technical support. He stressed that amici curiae are legal advisors and not subject matter experts in animal behaviour or epidemiology, urging the involvement of domain specialists where necessary.

Another senior lawyer, Mahalaxmi Pavani, raised concerns about the harassment faced by women who feed and care for stray dogs. She pointed out that so-called “anti-feeder vigilantes” often target women and that authorities remain largely silent.

In response, the court observed that abusive language and threats are unacceptable against anyone and added, “People can use derogatory statements for anyone. Things are said about us also. Take action.”

The bench clarified that it has never ordered the blanket removal of all stray dogs from the streets. Its direction has always been to follow the Animal Birth Control Rules, which focus on sterilisation, vaccination, and controlled management of stray dog populations.

The court is trying to strike a balance between animal welfare and public safety, especially as India continues to face serious public health challenges from rabies and dog bite incidents. The judges repeatedly emphasised that emotional or idealistic portrayals of stray dogs cannot replace practical, ground-level solutions.

The hearing remains inconclusive and is scheduled to continue on January 13. The outcome is expected to play a significant role in shaping how Indian cities handle the growing conflict between animal rights concerns and public health responsibilities.

For now, the Supreme Court’s strong words signal a clear message: compassion must be rooted in realism, and policies on stray dogs must prioritise human safety alongside animal welfare.