Supreme Court, Stray Dogs & Constitutional Limits

Everything that goes on in the 0.1 sq km campus of Supreme Court has a legal backing in some or the other article of the Constitution of India. Well everything, except the Nov 7, 2025 order of the Suo Moto Stray Dogs case bench.For example, when an advocate argues a case for a client in Supreme Court, then the learned advocate is exercising his/her freedom to practise any profession as mentioned under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The client is taking their issue to SC for redressal under their right to move for judicial remedy to the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution. Similarly, SC itself is established under Article 124 of the Constitution that says “Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court” and that SC is located in Delhi is also because of an article of the Constitution (Article 130 – The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi). That we have a Constitution of India and not instead governed by the British made laws is because of Article 395 which repeals the British Parliament passed Indian Independence Act, 1947 and the Government of India Act, 1935. That this Constitution is currently applicable to India is because of Article 394, which mandates that the “...provisions of this Constitution shall come into force on the twenty-sixth day of January, 1950”. And finally, if you can believe it, even that the Constitution is called the “Constitution of India” because of Article 393, which mentions that “This Constitution may be called the Constitution of India.”But the Nov 7 order of SC, specifically para 25 clause E of the same has nebulous if not non-existent constitutional moorings. Why? because this order imperiously ordered the forthwith removal of every stray dog found on institutional land and that after sterilization the dogs not be released back to the same location and this mandate is completely contrary to the law made by the Parliament (the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 read with Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023) which read together state that under rule 11(19) that “...The dogs shall be released at the same place or locality from where they were captured..” This means that we have a constitutional stand-off, as the three judges of Supreme Court are passing an order that flies in the face of the clear law made by the Parliament. The same Parliament which houses democratically elected members, representing the will of the people of the country, which is exactly what judges are not - elected by the people of the country. The same people of the country which the Constitution declares as sovereign as it starts with the line “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India”. Since the Parliamentary law and the Nov 7 order are diametrically opposed to each other, only one can stand. But the respected Judges have passed this order without even questioning the said no relocation rule from the ABC Rules, 2023. And this is what is baffling the author, that if even the name of the Constitution is under some provision of the Constitution, then under what confounded Article do the judges possess power to pass orders overriding the law of the Parliament! Is there an article in the Constitution of India which says that judges can blithely ignore certain laws as and when they want? Last the author checked, the whole point of the Constitution was to curb any such arbitrary tendencies of any branch of the government. The very same Constitution in the Third Schedule provides the oath which all Supreme Court judges must take and this oath states having been appointed a Judge of Supreme Court “do swear in the name of God that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India... and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.”The author is not even delving into arguments such as the unimplementability of the Clause E order as argued legends of the law like senior advocates KK Venugopal (former Attorney-General for India) or the possible alternatives to such a draconian order as delineated by senior advocate Kapil Sibal or the deeper constitutional conflicts of the said order as adumbrated by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi (former Additional Solicitor General of India) and other such issues raised by a veritable who's-who of the judicial firmament.The author is only asking a single question – if everything in SC has a legal provision behind it (including the name of the Constitution itself!) then can the judges in the next order kindly edify the country, from which article are they deriving their power to ignore and ride roughshod over an existing Parliamentary law and passing orders contrary to it. Much obliged, Your Lordship.The writer is advocate, SC