Supreme Court to pass order in stray dogs case on Nov 7
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Monday said it would pass order in the stray dogs case on November 7.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria noted that chief secretaries of most of the states and Union Territories were present before it.
It allowed the exemption application filed by the chief secretary of Kerala and noted that a principal secretary of the state was present in the court.
The bench said the Animal Welfare Board of India be made a party in the matter.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that most of the states and UTs have filed their compliance affidavit in the matter.
"List for orders on November 7," the bench said.
It said personal presence of the chief secretaries of states and UTs would no longer be required.
However, the bench said their presence would again become necessary in case there was any default in compliance of the orders passed by the court.
While hearing the matter on October 27, the top court had directed the chief secretaries of states and UTs, except West Bengal and Telangana, to remain present before it on November 3 to explain why compliance affidavits were not filed despite the court's August 22 order.
The apex court on August 22 asked the states and UTs about the steps being taken for compliance of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
The bench had expressed displeasure over the non-compliance of its order and observed that by October 27, compliance affidavits were not filed by the states and UTs, except West Bengal, Telangana and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
It had made clear that the chief secretaries would have to appear in the court and explain as to why no compliance affidavits were filed by them.
On October 27, the top court had slammed the states and UTs, which had not filed their compliance affidavits in the matter, and said continuous incidents were happening and the country was being "shown as down" in foreign nations.
The apex court had earlier expanded the scope of the stray dogs case beyond the confines of Delhi-National Capital Region, and directed that all states and UTs be made parties in the matter.
It had directed the municipal authorities to file an affidavit of compliance with complete statistics of resources like dog pounds, veterinarians, dog-catching personnel, and specially-modified vehicles and cages available as on date for the purpose of compliance of the ABC Rules.
The bench had also impleaded the states and UTs in the matter while observing that application of ABC Rules was uniform all over India.
The apex court is hearing a suo motu case which was initiated on July 28 over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
