A noted Supreme Court advocate argues that Bhagwant Mann’s proposed culling operations may rest on a dangerous misreading of the recent apex court judgment that never authorised mass euthanasia of street dogs in violation of Constitution & existing animal protection laws

Triggered by the SC judgment on stray dogs passed two days back, the CM of Punjab Bhagwant Mann, has tweeted that the State of Punjab will immediately start culling operations.

To which the author requests: Dear Respected CM of Punjab Bhagwant Mann, please hold off on any such actions. Let alone killing thousands, you will lose votes by millions by such actions. I hope the former appeals to you more than the latter but I cannot do the hedonistic calculations for anyone and leave it to your wisdom. This order of the SC is on very shaky if not non-existent grounds. Why? Please read on:

In this 19-May-2026 judgment, the SC passed multiple directions and one of which on page 121 is: “H. … subject to due assessment by qualified veterinary experts and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 and other applicable statutory protocols, take such measures as may be legally permissible, including euthanasia in cases involving rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous/aggressive dogs, so as to effectively curb the threat posed to human life and safety.”

The problem here is that the law of the land (the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023) mention no such condition to kill dogs and the SC just casually inserted a new fourth condition! This is shocking beyond belief that the SC out of the blue and without even mentioning any such intention to counsels, inserted a fourth condition of “demonstrably/dangerous/aggressive dogs” to kill stray dogs.

By doing this the SC:

1. Brazenly transgressed constitutional boundaries and added another condition to a law – which they cannot do, because in a proud democracy like India, only the Parliament (elected by the people of India) can make or amend laws and not unelected judges, whose sole preserve is the interpretation of laws!

2. Added a condition that is highly subjective, not clearly defined and liable to abuse – someone might even say that a dog looked at me the wrong way last few days and that this dog is “demonstrably aggressive” and thus should be killed. So much for our fundamental duty under the Article 51A(h) Constitution which enjoins on citizens “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.”

This subjectivity exactly was the issue in the Kerala stray dogs case, where their law said that any dog which is deemed to be a “nuisance” is liable to be euthanized and then later in the same SC about two years back held that the PCA Act 1960 will prevail and no such Kerala law will be applicable. The author clearly remembers in the hearings on this Kerala law, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia questioning the Senior Advocate appearing for Kerala, the exact same question, that “nuisance” is very subjective and has no definition.

3. The SC has contradicted itself! – in the said direction “H”, the SC adds this new fourth condition but two lines above it, itself says that the killing must be done “strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023” when these laws expressly prohibit any such killing other than the three conditions of mortally wounded, incurably ill and rabid.

4. Violated Natural justice by not even hearing the lawyers – one of the first things law students are taught is that any order must be passed after hearing all the parties. In this case the SC did not mention any such direction to anyone and thus no lawyer could even raise one objection. What was the SC afraid of, that some righteous voice may drown out constitutional “legerdemain”.

This is a straight up constitutional crisis and this order of 19 May is liable to be stayed on just this point itself that the SC has judicially legislated a new condition regarding the life and death of a sentient being and this violated the central tenet of separation of power as mandated by our constitution and re-affirmed a thousand times already by the same SC!

The judges are not elected by the people of India, they do not represent the majority and the SC is not a deliberative body, the Parliament is. Such matters concerning life and death should be left to the place where it belongs and that is the Parliament!

The author would like to conclude by addressing the CJI in John Oliver style: Dear Chief Justice of India Surya Kant Sir, this order is making a mockery of the Constitution. This will result in the death of thousands of God’s creatures, and break the hearts of millions of citizens who feed them. If this is not an example of the courts usurping the power of the legislature, then what is? Please stay the order or at least refer this issue to a larger bench.

END OF ARTICLE