"These funds are never actually spent where needed — in making the arrangements that the SC, in understandable exasperation, has now decreed. Perhaps the funds should instead be allotted to Animal Welfare groups and sincere NGOs with a track record of sheltering animals? They are more likely to implement the ABC programme than the municipalities are," he added.
Tharoor's remarks came in response to a comment by advocate Ashutosh Dubey under Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale's post, who defended the court’s order as a necessary judicial intervention.
Dubey noted that the bench acted under its constitutional powers to balance public safety with administrative responsibility, following repeated failures by local authorities to control rabies-related deaths and dog attacks despite existing laws.
He added that the order does not permit “wanton cruelty” but calls for regulated removal, sheltering, vaccination, and sterilisation of aggressive strays in line with the ABC Rules and PCA Act.
The apex court’s directions, issued under Articles 32 and 142, call for identifying and sheltering aggressive strays in regulated facilities, while ensuring vaccination, sterilisation, and opportunities for adoption. “The order is not arbitrary,” Dubey said, adding that it aligns with Article 21 rights “not only of animals, but also of citizens, especially children and the elderly.”
He stressed that judicial intervention became necessary “after years of non-compliance by civic bodies and the rising number of fatalities.”
On Monday, The Supreme Court has directed the Delhi government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to immediately remove stray dogs from all localities, particularly in vulnerable areas, stressing there should be “no compromise” in the exercise.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed authorities to start the process without delay, even setting up a special force if required, stating that making all localities free of stray dogs “should be the first and foremost exercise.
The judges cautioned that contempt proceedings would be initiated against anyone obstructing the process, including animal rights activists, saying, “If any individual or organisation comes in the way, we will proceed to take action.”