Appearing on behalf of the animal welfare organisation All Creatures Great and Small (ACGS), Singhvi contended that courts should step in only where there is a legislative vacuum. “When Parliament has consciously chosen not to interfere, the court should also stay away,” he told the bench, emphasising that detailed frameworks such as the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules already regulate the management of stray dogs.

Singhvi also raised concerns over the court’s reliance on amicus curiae, noting that while they may be legal experts, they are not necessarily subject-matter specialists. He suggested that policy decisions involving animal welfare and public health should be guided by domain experts rather than judicial interpretation alone. Citing the recent Aravalli hills case, Singhvi pointed out that the Supreme Court had to stay its own November 20, 2025 ruling—defining Aravalli hills as those above 100 metres—after recognising the need for expert inputs.

The hearing saw diverse viewpoints from multiple petitioners. Senior advocate and animal rights activist Mahalakshmi Pavani flagged incidents of harassment faced by women who care for or feed dogs, alleging that they are often subjected to abuse and defamatory remarks. Justice Vikram Nath responded that such actions amount to criminal offences and should be addressed through law enforcement mechanisms.

Another petitioner proposed microchipping stray dogs to identify aggressive animals, estimating the cost at Rs 100–200 per dog. Justice Sandeep Mehta, however, questioned the feasibility of the proposal, urging counsel to consider India’s population and resource constraints before suggesting solutions.

The bench also rejected arguments portraying stray dogs as harmless in sensitive public spaces. Justice Mehta cautioned against “glorifying” the presence of dogs in hospitals, observing that street animals can carry insects and pose public health risks. Referring to a submission involving a dog allegedly present at AIIMS, the court stressed that hospitals must remain hygienic and safe zones.

During the proceedings, lawyers reiterated that the case is not a conflict between humans and animals but a failure of governance. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat argued that the state has shifted responsibility onto the judiciary instead of ensuring effective implementation of existing rules.

The case, triggered by reports of rabies-linked dog bites in July 2025, is nearing conclusion, with the Supreme Court set to hear the remaining petitions in the coming days.