On 9th January, the Supreme Court of India came down sharply on veteran actor Sharmila Tagore for her submission opposing a ‘one size fits all’ approach to dealing with the stray dog menace. The apex court observed that the argument placed before it was “completely removed from reality”. The bench strongly rebuked attempts to normalise and even glorify the presence of stray dogs in sensitive public places such as hospitals.
Court rejected attempt to romanticise stray dogs in hospitals
During the hearing, counsel appearing for Tagore cited the example of a reportedly friendly dog named “Goldie” that allegedly lived on the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) campus for several years. The argument was made to suggest that not all stray dogs pose a threat.
Counsel: let’s see aggressive dogs vs normal dogs. There was a dog named Goldie in AIIMS, she’s there since many years.
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) January 9, 2026
Court: was she being taken to the hospital theatre also? Any dog that’s in the streets is bound to have ticks. And a dog with ticks in a hospital will have…
However, the bench expressed displeasure over the argument and questioned the logic of the submission. The court asked whether the dog was also allowed inside operation theatres and warned about serious hygiene risks. The bench asked, “Any dog that’s on the streets is bound to have ticks. And a dog with ticks in a hospital will have disastrous consequences. Do you understand?”
‘Do not try to glorify dogs in hospitals’, SC warned
While rejecting the “emotional” framing of the argument, the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N V Anjaria stated that the dog lovers’ submissions were detached from ground realities. The judges remarked, “We’ll let you know the reality of what is being argued. You are completely removed from reality. Don’t try to glorify these dogs in the hospitals.”
Earlier, Tagore’s counsel had argued that stray dogs should not be removed or euthanised unless they are first identified as “aggressive” by expert committees through behaviour-based assessments. The court dismissed this contention as impractical, reiterating its concerns over patient safety, hygiene, and public health.
Colour coded collars proposal dismissed as impractical
The bench also rejected a proposal suggesting colour coded collars for dogs that had bitten people, a practice reportedly followed in countries such as Georgia and Armenia. The judges questioned the feasibility of such a system in India, pointing to the vast difference in population size and ground realities.
Counsel: colour coding collars can be done to identify dogs as who has bitten before etc. this has been done in countries like Georgia, Armenia etc.
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) January 9, 2026
Court: what is the population of those countries? Please be realistic counsel.
“What is the population of those countries? Please be realistic,” the court observed.
No blanket removal ordered, SC clarified
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that it has not ordered the blanket removal of all dogs from public spaces. It reiterated that its directions are confined to the implementation of the existing Animal Birth Control rules.
The next date of hearing in stray dog menace matter is 13th January.
OpIndia is doing a series on the stray dog menace in India which can be checked here.
