Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules, 2023 classifies 'street dogs' as those found living 'on the street or within a gated campus.' Are schools, hospitals, and railway stations not 'gated campuses'? Why should they be treated differently from the statutory classification?

My Lord, the applicants submit that Rule 7(2) explicitly includes 'gated campus' within the classification of street dogs or community owned dogs. The expression 'gated campus' is not qualified or limited. It would, therefore, include educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, and other institutional premises. If the rule-making authority had intended to exclude such sensitive institutions, it would have done so. The fact that it did not indicates that the statutory scheme contemplates the application of the CSVR model even within gated campuses. The Court's direction to treat them differently amounts to judicial amendment of the Rules, which is impermissible under Article 142.

Section 2(i) of the PCA Act, 1960 defines 'street' as areas to which the public has access. Hospitals, schools, and railway stations are areas to which the public has access. Does that not bring them within the definition?

My Lord, the applicants agree that Section 2(i) of the PCA Act, 1960 is a broad definition. But the parent Act defines 'street' for its own purposes. The ABC Rules, 2023 were framed under this parent Act. The Rules use the expression 'same place or locality' in Rule 11(19), not 'street'. The Rules also use 'gated campus' in Rule 7(2). If the rule-making authority had intended to limit re-release to public streets, it would have used the word 'street' in Rule 11(19). It did not. It used the broader expression 'same place or locality.' This deliberate choice of language must be given effect. The Court's interpretation that 'locality' is confined to 'street' effectively reads 'gated campus' out of Rule 7(2) and reads 'street' into Rule 11(19) — both impermissible.

The statistics show that over 2.63 lakh dog-bite cases were recorded in Tamil Nadu in just four months of 2026, with 17 deaths. Do you still argue that the Court should not intervene to protect public safety?

My Lord, the applicants do not dispute the seriousness of dog-bite incidents or the State's obligation to ensure public safety. The applicants submit that the solution lies in effective implementation of the existing statutory framework — the CSVR model — not in abandoning it. The CSVR model, when properly implemented, has been shown to reduce dog-bite incidents by over 68% in Dehradun. The problem is not the statutory scheme; the problem is the lack of adequate infrastructure, funding, and administrative commitment. The Court should direct the States to implement the CSVR model effectively, not direct removal and permanent sheltering, which is scientifically flawed and practically impossible.

The financial and logistical estimates you have provided — over 1.5 crore dogs from educational institutions alone, 77,000 shelters, annual expenditure of Rs. 22,000 crores — are staggering. But are these estimates realistic? The directions contemplate utilisation of existing infrastructure, not creation of new facilities from scratch.

My Lord, the applicants submit that even utilising existing infrastructure, the scale of the problem is enormous. There are over 15 lakh educational institutions in India. Even if only 10 dogs per institution are removed, that is 1.5 crore dogs. Existing gaushalas and cattle pounds are already overburdened and are designed for cattle, not for dogs. They lack the infrastructure for long-term housing of canines, including proper veterinary care, disease management, and behavioural assessment. Moreover, many States have reported that their existing ABC centres are operating far below capacity due to lack of trained personnel and equipment. The directions, even if well-intentioned, are simply not implementable in the current ground realities without massive and unprecedented financial investment. The Court should defer to the executive on this complex policy matter.

For PetitionerConstitutional Premium

Animal Welfare Organisations Seeking Modification of Directions — (2026) 1 SCC 774

Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023 mandates re-release of sterilised and vaccinated stray dogs to the same locality.

In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price — (2026) 1 SCC 774

Core Argument

Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023 mandates re-release of sterilised and vaccinated stray dogs to the same locality. The Court's direction prohibiting re-release from institutional areas directly conflicts with statutory provisions and violates the fundamental principles underlying the ABC framework, including prevention of the 'vacuum effect'.

Key Precedents

Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., 1962 SCC OnLine SC 10 — Constitution Bench held that power under Article 142(1) cannot be exercised to make an order inconsistent with statutory provisions or substantive law.
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231 — Constitution Bench held that exercise of Article 142 power is prohibited when the order is plainly and expressly barred by statutory provisions based on fundamental principles of public policy.
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 — While affirming plenary nature of Article 142, this Court held that due regard must be had to statutory provisions founded on fundamental considerations of public policy.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in