TMC MP Mahua Moitra on Monday, 25 May 2026, publicly called out the Supreme Court of India, accusing it of adopting an 'inhumane, cruel and unacceptable' approach toward community dogs that she said is resulting in their mass annihilation across the country.

Context

Moitra posted on X urging the apex court to protect what she called 'voiceless God's creatures,' stating: 'With all due respect Supreme Court of India has a duty towards all sentient beings. SC's inhumane, cruel and unacceptable approach towards community dogs is leading to mass annihilation of these voiceless God's creatures all over. Please protect them.'

The post does not cite a specific order but signals alarm over what the Krishnanagar MP characterises as a judicial posture that, in her view, is enabling or permitting lethal action against stray dogs instead of protecting them.

Policy Backdrop

India's legal framework for stray-dog management rests on two pillars: the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. The 2001 Rules explicitly mandate sterilisation, vaccination, and release of community dogs by municipal bodies, prohibiting culling as a population-control measure.

Article 51A(g) of the Constitution further places a fundamental duty on citizens — and by extension on the state — to have compassion for living creatures. Animal-rights groups have long invoked both provisions to challenge municipal culling drives in courts, including the Supreme Court.

Indian courts have, over the years, navigated a recurring tension between public-safety concerns — dog bites and rabies control — and the statutory preference for humane population-management methods. Several states have faced legal challenges over alleged culling operations that activists argue violate the 2001 Rules.

Stakeholders and Impact

Animal welfare organisations and activists across India have for years lobbied municipal corporations to implement sterilisation programmes in letter and spirit. They argue that mass culling is not only illegal but counterproductive, as it does not reduce stray-dog populations sustainably.

Urban residents and public-health advocates, on the other hand, have approached courts seeking stronger local-body action following dog-bite incidents, creating a legal tug-of-war that repeatedly lands before the Supreme Court. Municipal corporations, caught between competing court directions and resource constraints, have often been found in breach of the 2001 Rules by various high courts.

Moitra's intervention brings parliamentary visibility to the debate, potentially prompting legislative scrutiny of the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, which oversees the Animal Birth Control Rules.

What's Next

Attention will now turn to any fresh Supreme Court orders on pending stray-dog petitions and to whether the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying moves to amend the Animal Birth Control Rules to provide clearer, enforceable protections. Moitra's public rebuke of the apex court raises the stakes for both judicial and executive action on community-dog welfare, and could galvanise animal-rights groups to intensify their legal and parliamentary campaigns.