The Supreme Court on Friday delivered strong remarks while hearing the long-running case on managing stray dogs, taking issue with submissions made on behalf of actor Sharmila Tagore. The court said the arguments presented against a uniform policy to address the stray dog problem were disconnected from on-ground realities, particularly when it came to public health and safety.

Tagore, who is one of the petitioners in the matter, was represented by counsel who cited the example of a dog named “Goldie,” described as a docile animal that has reportedly lived on the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) campus for several years. The submission was meant to underline the point that not all stray dogs are dangerous.

The bench, however, responded firmly, questioning the practicality and safety of such arguments. The judges pointed out that street dogs are likely to carry ticks and other parasites, and their presence in medical environments could pose serious health risks. The court made it clear that projecting stray dogs as harmless in sensitive spaces such as hospitals was unacceptable.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria said that glorifying the presence of stray animals in healthcare facilities ignored basic hygiene concerns and patient safety. The judges stressed that such views failed to reflect the realities faced by doctors, patients and hospital administrators.

Earlier in the hearing, Tagore’s side had suggested that dogs should only be removed or euthanised after being officially classified as aggressive by expert panels using behavioural assessments. The court was unconvinced, reiterating its concern about whether such dogs were also being allowed unrestricted access to critical areas like operation theatres.

The bench also dismissed a proposal to mark dogs that have bitten people with colour-coded collars, a system reportedly used in smaller countries such as Georgia and Armenia. The judges noted that such comparisons were impractical given India’s vastly larger stray dog population.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for animal welfare group All Creatures Great and Small, urged caution, arguing that the court should avoid issuing directions with irreversible consequences without robust scientific input. He maintained that legal advisors could not replace the expertise of professionals trained in animal behaviour and public health.

Clarifying its position, the Supreme Court reiterated that it had not ordered the removal of all stray dogs from public areas. It emphasised that its focus remained on enforcing the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules effectively. Tagore’s petition had earlier argued that any long-term solution to the stray dog issue must involve scientific, psychological and policy-level review of the existing ABC mechanism.