Tag: injustice

When Two Judges Can Move Thousands of Dogs—but Five Judges Won’t Move on Marriage Equality

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

India just witnessed something extraordinary: a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court ordered Delhi–NCR to round up every stray dog and move them into shelters within eight weeks, warning of contempt for anyone who resists. The order, passed on 11 August 2025, explicitly rubbishes the government’s own Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023—which require sterilise-vaccinate-return (SVR) and bar relocation. Meanwhile, on the fundamental question of marriage equality, a five-judge Constitution Bench in Supriyo v. Union of India (17 Oct 2023) declined to recognise same-sex marriage, saying Parliament must act. The contrast is stark—and troubling.       

The duplicity problem

• On stray dogs (2025): Multiple outlets report the Supreme Court directed MCD/NDMC/Noida/Gurugram/Ghaziabad to remove all street dogs to shelters and never release them back—contrary to ABC 2023’s core SVR principle. Reports also quote the bench calling the “sterilise and return” rule “absurd”, and warning NGOs not to obstruct. Subsequent coverage shows the CJI indicating the Court “will look into” conflicts with earlier SC positions that barred killing/relocation.     

• On marriage equality (2023): A five-judge bench held that recognising same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act is for Parliament, not the Court. The Court acknowledged discrimination against LGBTQ+ people but refused to read queer couples into the SMA, instead suggesting a government committee to consider limited benefits.    

If a two-judge bench can, in effect, override a central rule and upend the ABC policy nationwide (de facto, via a Delhi–NCR precedent), why was a five-judge bench unwilling to interpret the SMA to uphold equal citizenship? The institutional posture flips: muscular, near-legislative urgency for dogs; judicial restraint for queer families.

Why the dog order is legally and practically dangerous

• Conflicts with law & policy: The ABC Rules, 2023 (notified under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) codify sterilisation, vaccination, and return to the same locality. They also provide for designated feeding points and humane management. The SC’s relocation directive collides with this framework.   

• Unworkable on the ground: Delhi–NCR lacks the shelter infrastructure to permanently house tens of thousands of dogs. Civic bodies and activists warn of overcrowding, disease, and cruelty if mass detention is attempted. Even cities outside NCR are saying they simply cannot emulate this model.   

• Counterproductive for public health: ABC’s SVR model is designed to reduce bites and rabies by stabilising territorial packs and maintaining vaccination coverage. Forced removals often trigger ecological gaps, influx of unvaccinated dogs, and more conflict.  

Given these risks, the Court’s willingness to make a sweeping, arguably suo motu-style intervention (as several reports characterise it) feels less like adjudication and more like policy-making.  

Meanwhile, queer couples are told to wait for Parliament

In Supriyo, the Court affirmed dignity and non-discrimination but declined to provide a workable remedy through interpretation—despite doing exactly that in many rights cases. It was content to ask the executive to study “benefits” while keeping the door shut on equal marriage and adoption. For LGBTQ+ Indians, the message is: your equality is a legislative grace, not a judicial guarantee.  

Is this about politics?

I worry this sudden, headline-grabbing “law-and-order” posture on dogs is a political distraction at a time when allegations about election integrity are flaring. Rahul Gandhi and the Congress have launched campaigns on “vote theft,” citing manipulation across dozens of constituencies and fake voters—charges that, if true, strike at the heart of democracy. These remain allegations, and must be investigated transparently; but the timing is conspicuous.   

What the record shows (for readers who want the receipts)

• Stray dog order (Aug 11, 2025): Reuters, Indian Express, DD News and others report the Court directed capture and relocation to shelters within eight weeks; follow-ups note possible review because of conflicting past orders.     

• ABC Rules, 2023 (Mar 10, 2023): Government-notified rules mandate sterilise-vaccinate-return, designated feeding areas, and humane management by local bodies/AWOs.   

• Marriage equality (Oct 17, 2023): Five-judge bench in Supriyo declines to recognise same-sex marriage; says Parliament must decide; suggests an executive committee for limited rights. Official judgment and reputable summaries available.   

• Election integrity claims (Aug 2025): Rahul Gandhi alleges “vote-chori” in 48 seats, protests announced; these are currently claims by the opposition, not findings by a court or inquiry.   

My stance

When courts flex power to reorder city life overnight—but plead restraint on core constitutional equality—the result feels like duplicity. Stray dogs are not pawns in a political game; they are sentient beings protected under our laws. Delhi–NCR should implement ABC 2023 rigorously—high-coverage sterilisation, mass anti-rabies vaccination, monitored feeding points, quick response to aggression—rather than unlawful, unscientific mass detention. And LGBTQ+ Indians deserve more than dignity in theory; they deserve equality in fact.

If we can uproot an entire animal-management regime with two signatures, surely we can find the constitutional courage to read equality into our marriage laws—or at the very least, to stop treating queer rights as someone else’s homework.

⸻

Note on sources & fairness: I’ve cited mainstream reporting, government notifications, and the Supriyo judgment. The bench composition and some characterisations (e.g., “absurd” remark on SVR) come from multiple reports; if the Court issues a formal clarification or stay, that will need to be reflected. Allegations of “vote theft” are presented as claims by Rahul Gandhi and the Congress, pending independent verification.         

Fear Is Not Justice

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

Monday, 11 August 2025 — the Supreme Court of India has ordered that all stray dogs in the Delhi–NCR region be rounded up within eight weeks and placed into shelters.

Eight weeks. Two months.

Anyone who loves or works with street dogs knows what this means. It means these fur-kids will be ripped away from the only streets, corners, and human connections they know. It means they will be shoved into overcrowded, filthy shelters run by corporations and municipalities that see them as a burden, not a life. It means fear, disease, abuse, and death.

I have seen how dogs are kept in Mumbai’s pounds. The conditions are appalling. They are treated like refuse, not sentient beings. And now, the same fate awaits thousands in Delhi.

I’ve seen this cruelty before

I can’t read this ruling without my mind racing back to the first dog I ever rescued.

I was seven or eight when a young white pup with brown markings wandered into my compound. She was small, shy, and beautiful. I gave her shelter in an abandoned car, fed her, and let her roam free when I was inside my house. She became part of the little group of dogs that hung around the building corner.

One afternoon, I heard her yelping. I ran to my bedroom window and saw the municipal van. Men had caged her and were lifting her into the back. I was eight years old — I didn’t know how to fight them. And then she was gone. I never saw her again. That helplessness burned itself into me. I still feel it. 

I had named her Diana.

Years later, I rescued another — a fawn-coloured pup with a stubby tail and the gentlest green eyes. He had wandered into my housing compound, where the security guard was beating him with a stick. I scooped him up and took him home. He was affectionate, trusting, full of fleas and love. I named him Bilbo. I already had two dogs then and my home was small, so I found a friend to adopt him. Giving him away was like tearing a piece of my heart out.

We have to remember:

Rabies doesn’t just happen.

Dog bites don’t just happen.

They happen because we — humans, governments, societies — have failed.

Because vaccination drives are abandoned halfway.

Because sterilisation projects are underfunded and poorly executed.

Because the budgets meant for animal welfare disappear into corrupt pockets.

We create the problem, and then we punish the victims of our neglect. And now, an entire population of innocent dogs is about to pay the price for decades of human carelessness.

When one dog attacks, the response shouldn’t be to round up every dog. That’s the same flawed thinking as branding all men violent because some commit rape, or branding an entire religion dangerous because of one extremist.

It is bigotry applied to animals. It is fear driving policy. And fear rarely chooses the right path.

The easy way is always the cruel way. There are other solutions. There always are.

• Mass sterilisation drives done properly and consistently.

• Continuous vaccination programmes.

• Feeding zones where dogs and people can safely co-exist.

• Shelters that are humane, healing spaces — not prisons of neglect.

But these require work. These require compassion. These require the slow, difficult path that governments rarely take because cruelty is easier. Cruelty can be done quickly, with a press release and a photo op.

I’m not even from Delhi, but this ruling has left me shaken and deeply sad. I’ve seen what happens when bureaucracy decides that an animal’s life has no worth.

I’ve lost hope for the system. I’ve lost hope in leaders. I’ve even lost hope in many people I once loved. I know there are protests, petitions, people fighting — and I am signing them, I am adding my name — but inside me, hope feels like a very faint and dying ember.

The truth is, the world has taught me that humans can live through genocides, the slaughter of innocents, and barely blink. If that is true for human lives, how much hope can I have for animals?

If this ruling were truly about public safety, it would start with fixing the systems that failed. It would start with funding sterilisation and vaccination programmes properly. It would start with auditing the budgets already spent — and stolen.

Instead, this ruling chooses the laziest path: punish the innocent because the guilty are untouchable.

We do not cull all men when women are raped. We do not round up all children when one commits a crime. But we are willing — in the blink of an eye — to round up all dogs when a few incidents occur. That is not justice. That is cowardice disguised as governance.

And let us be clear: fear is not a reason to abandon compassion. Fear is not an excuse to brutalise the defenceless. Fear should never be the guiding principle of a civilised society.

If you have power, you have a choice:

You can use it to protect the voiceless, or you can use it to destroy them. History will remember which you chose.

So, I will speak. I will speak for Diana. I will speak for Bilbo. I will speak for every street dog in Delhi and beyond who will be torn away from their familiar lives, confused, terrified, and caged.

It was never their fault. It was ours. And no court order will change that truth.

If I cannot stop this, I can at least refuse to be silent. Because silence, too, is a cruelty.