After requesting a stay order on stray dogs, Kapil Sibal is asked by the Supreme Court, What is objectionable?

Referring to the verdict, Justice Vikram Nath questioned, “What is the objectionable part?” as a three-judge Supreme Court panel began hearing arguments against the apex court’s earlier order on stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR region.

Kapil Sibal, who was defending the petitioners who wanted to halt the order mandating that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be picked up within eight weeks and placed in dog shelters, was asked the question by the Supreme Court.

Get real-time updates on the SC stray dog case hearing here.

Sibal offered many points in response to a question about what he found problematic in the judgment, all of which focused on the dearth of canine shelters in the Delhi-NCR area.

“Start rounding the street dogs from all locality in Delhi Ghaziabad Faridabad etc and to relocate them to Shelters and pounds that don’t exist,” Sibal was quored as saying by LiveLaw, adding that he did not have any problem with the directions on creating the shelters.

The prohibition against releasing stray dogs. Since there aren’t any shelters in the first place, that can’t be done either. Direction that there should be no lethargy in picking up the dogs. That also needs to be stayed. Where will they take the dogs once they pick them up?” Sibal further argued.

Sibal wasn’t the only advocate who brought up the problem of the city’s canine shelter shortage on behalf of the petitioners.

Justice Sandeep Mehta requested the filing of an affidavit after hearing the arguments.

Speaking on behalf of the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cited the number of dog bite instances in the nation when defending the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this week.

“There is a very loud vocal minority and silent suffering majority,” Mehta stated in response to the outcry from the public and animal rights groups over the Supreme Court judgment. He also mentioned that he has witnessed people recording videos of themselves eating meat and then professing to be animal lovers.

Mehta responded to the outcry from the public and animal rights advocates following the Supreme Court’s ruling by saying, “There is a very loud vocal minority and silent suffering majority.” He also mentioned that he has witnessed people broadcast videos of themselves eating meat and then claim to be animal lovers.