New Delhi: Street dogs are “the only protectors” of homeless orphans, a lawyer told the Supreme Court on Monday during a hearing in the Delhi stray dog case. The argument came from Poulomi Pavini Shukla, a longtime advocate for the rights and reservation of orphaned children and the author of Weakest on Earth: Orphans of India.
“I walk away slightly more comfortable knowing that the 13-year-old girl sleeping at a railway station is protected because a street dog is sleeping next to her,” Shukla said.
Contending that street dogs are the “last line of defence” for these children, she also questioned the ethical priority of investing crores in animal shelters when thousands of minors live without a roof over their heads.
“If this court removes their last line of defence before giving them shelter, these children will be orphaned twice, once by the state and once by this honourable court,” she told the bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria. Into her oration, she also deftly wove in that overcrowding in shelters increased the risk of disease in animals, including rabies.
Speaking to ThePrint, Shukla drew parallels between the plight of street dogs and orphans.
“Orphans have never been counted in India’s census. For 18 years, they have remained invisible and voiceless, exactly like street dogs. Problems like these are systemic issues. They cannot be solved by mediocre actions; they need long-term, humane, compassionate strategies,” she said. “This case is being framed as dogs versus children, but someone who genuinely cares about children will also care about other vulnerable beings.”
The case before the Supreme Court began in July last year, when it took suo motu cognisance of a Times of India report on the death of a child from rabies after a stray dog bite. On 7 November, the Supreme Court, citing an “alarming rise” in dog-bite incidents in schools, hospitals, and railway stations, directed that stray animals picked up in Delhi be sterilised and vaccinated, relocated to designated shelters, and not released back.
The SC is now hearing a batch of petitions after lawyers and animal activists said they were not heard before the November order was passed. The court is set to hear the matter next on 20 January.
Also Read: British Raj determined what kind of dog was acceptable in India—pets vs strays
‘Children need to be removed first’
Shukla told the court that street dogs often act as protectors in poor neighbourhoods, especially for women with no access to security.
“As a woman living alone in Delhi, I feel safer knowing there are dogs who can bark if I am attacked,” she said.
Shukla also cited the example of Uttar Pradesh to draw a contrast between proposed spending on dog relocation and the absence of orphan homes.
“It is constitutionally inverse that we are talking about spending Rs 20,000 crore on dog shelters when 45 out of 75 districts in Uttar Pradesh don’t have a single orphanage,” she said. “The protection of children inside homes cannot be more important than the rights of children without homes.”
Invoking her work with orphaned children, including her 2015 book, Shukla said her submissions were based on “ground experience.” A Wharton School graduate, Shukla was included in Forbes 30 under 30 in 2021 for her work for the orphan children in India under her campaign ‘Weakest on Earth’.
Other than the angle of child rights, she highlighted the public health risks of overcrowding in animal shelters. Referring to cases where the virus spread through droplets rather than bites, she told the bench that when one animal falls sick, many often do, raising the risk of mutation and wider transmission.
“Children need to be removed from the streets first—dogs later,” she concluded.
Shukla’s contentions seemed to have made an impression. Later in the hearing, when a counsel for Delhi’s “Dog Amma” propounded policies such as incentivising the adoption of strays, Justice Mehta responded with a degree of outrage.
“Are you for real? A young counsel just now argued and showed us the statistics of orphaned children on the streets. We wish some of the lawyers had argued for the adoption of these children,” he said. “Since 2011, when I was elevated… no one has argued so long or so compassionately for a human being”.
Also Read: As SC hears stray dog petitions, 4 state govts flag issues with Centre’s shift-to-shelter SOPs
Emotions running high
The arguments in the stray dog case have often been personal and emotional. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for animal welfare group Friendicoes, started her argument on Monday by telling the bench it was dealing with a “deeply contentious and emotional issue.”
To this came a sharp interjection from the bench: “Emotions seem to be only for the dogs.”
Guruswamy, best known for her role in the landmark Section 377 case that struck down the colonial-era ban on consensual gay sex, immediately replied: “No, no, my lordships. I am very attached to human beings. Your lordships know that I am a very friendly person.”
As her submissions carried on, the bench pointed out that she had “taken up seven minutes out of the three minutes you asked for.” To which Guruswamy quipped, “Milords, every time I am before your lordships, time just whizzes past. It is a joy, milords. It is a joy. That is the problem.”
A droll reply came from the bench: “No it is a joy hearing you also but there are so many others.”
(Edited by Asavari Singh)