Stray Dog Order ‘Balanced and Constructive’: Lawyer AP Singh
Senior Advocate A.P. Singh (Image X.com)
In an interview with Bhawna Malik, senior Supreme Court lawyer A.P. Singh calls the apex court’s ruling on stray dogs a relief for dog lovers and residents alike, urging peaceful co-existence and collective responsibility
Interview with Senior Advocate A.P. Singh on Supreme Court’s Stray Dog Judgement
Qn: What are your reflections on the Court’s judgement on the stray dogs issue?
Singh: It is a balanced, creative, and constructive judgement. The Court has done justice to dog lovers, residents, animals, activists, and even the families who lost their children in dog attacks. Importantly, it has erased the divide between the so-called “rich man’s dog” and the “poor family’s dog.”
Qn: You mentioned a divide between rich and poor dogs. Can you elaborate?
Singh: A rich person’s dog travels in BMWs, gets regular medical care, and lives in comfort. But a dog belonging to a labourer or a poor family doesn’t enjoy these luxuries. Yet dogs, regardless of status, only crave love, not hierarchy. This ruling recognises that all animals must be treated with equal dignity. Implementation has always been the challenge.
Qn: Municipal authorities say they lack shelters and funds for sterilisation. How can this work?
Singh: This is not about MCD versus residents, or government versus animal lovers. Central government must step in with funds. NGOs, political leaders—many of whom are dog lovers like Rahul Gandhi and CM Rekha Gupta—and society at large should also contribute. People’s participation is key.
Qn: The judgement mandates feeding stray dogs only at designated spots. Is that realistic in crowded urban areas?
Singh: It is possible if RWAs, residents, and dog lovers work together. Vacant plots or small corners of parks can be designated. Animal lovers who protested earlier can also help fund and maintain these spaces. Having dogs in localities also improves security; we’ve seen it in many cases.
Qn: You often speak from a philosophical perspective. Is this only about your love for dogs?
Singh: It is about Sanatan philosophy, which teaches Vasudev Kutumbkam—the world is one family. This earth belongs to all beings. Peaceful coexistence is our duty.
Qn: But what about those who fear dogs?
Singh: The Court has said aggressive or infected dogs will not be released. We must also remember that humans have encroached on animal spaces, not the other way around. From police squads to bomb detection units, dogs have served and even sacrificed for this country. We should treat them with respect.
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
LayMans Perspective
Unapologetic and Unfiltered Contemplations & Ramblings of a Tinkerer. Through the lens of experiences, interactions and sensory encounters, Raw and Half-Baked musings on Contemporary Concerns. It`s personal, imperfect and in flux. Chime in to Refine and Hone . Be Heard and Amplify
Dog’s Life: Strays and Hypocrites Have More Rights
The Supreme Court ruling on stray animals has flushed out the so-called ‘animal lovers’ from their burrows. Suddenly, they’re all experts on a topic they know nothing about, shouting themselves hoarse to feel relevant. But have any of them or their loved ones ever been on the receiving end of a pack of strays, mauled and eaten alive? Or gored and flung into the next life by a furious bovine? If not, do they really have the right to speak?
To the chicken-eating dog lovers: You have zero regard for the lives of chickens, goats, or shrimp you gluttonously devour. So do you honestly think stray dogs are more pious?
To the vegetarian dog lovers: You don’t think twice about squashing a mosquito. You install wire mesh to deny entry to the very ‘housefly’ that its name entitles it to. You watch mosquitoes writhe in pain from repellent fumes. You spray poisons on cockroaches and lizards without a qualm. Do you really believe strays have more rights than these creations of nature? If so, then so do humans! We have more rights than they do.
And to the most sacred and pious, who claim to not harm even insects: Do you think twice before yanking a weed from your garden? Weeds are also creations of God , don’t they have a right to life?
We claim to be the third-largest economy, but we lack funds for human shelters. So, are we really supposed to waste money on animal shelters? Or are stray animals supposed to live on our roads and streets? If not, and you’re a true animal lover, not a pseudo one, then open the doors of your house and the flap of your wallet.
If you’re still a die-hard lover of killer strays, here’s an idea: In the animal kingdom, the old often sacrifice themselves for the young. Why don’t you bequeath your property to these strays and pass on to the next world yourself?
These same people, who will lecture you about a dog’s right to life, won’t tolerate a poor person putting up a shanty nearby. They object to a tent, but have no problem with their own pets turning public spaces into a minefield of dog shit. Is their love for strays just a convenient excuse to avoid real human problems?