The political battle between the Aam Aadmi Party and the BJP over stray dogs continued for the first two days of the Delhi Assembly's winter session. The Supreme Court also heard the case related to stray dogs on Wednesday. The Supreme Court clarified that its amended order is limited to institutional areas, not public roads. So, what objection could there be to removing them from these places?

The bench further questioned why stray dogs should be present inside schools, hospitals, or courts. The court asked what objection could there be if they were removed. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing in favor of the dogs, began presenting his arguments.

"No one has bitten me."

Kapil Sibal said that when he visited temples, no one has bitten him. To this, the court responded, "You are lucky, but people and children are being bitten. People are even dying." Kapil Sibal said that animal birth control and CSRV procedures will gradually eliminate stray dogs. These models have been successfully tested. He stated that removing stray dogs in a large country like India could exacerbate existing problems. He argued that stray dogs also play a vital role in the urban ecosystem. Their sudden removal could have adverse effects.

The bench rejected this argument.

Kapil Sibal argued that if a dog is aggressive, it can be sterilized and released later. Justice Mehta, Sandeep Mehta, remarked that the only thing left to do then is to prevent dogs from biting. Justice Vikram Nath further stated that the danger is not limited to bites, but also includes road accidents caused by stray dogs. The bench expressed concern over the unpredictable behavior of dogs, stating that it is impossible to predict which dog is in what mood. Despite this, Kapil Sibal persisted in his argument that trapping all dogs is not the solution to this problem.

The case will now be heard tomorrow.

After arguments on the matter, the bench has fixed January 8 for the next hearing. The bench indicated that all parties would be given ample opportunity to present their views on the matter. Justice Vikram Nath said that procedural guidelines should not limit detailed arguments in a case involving complex issues involving public safety and animal welfare. He said that further hearing would now be held tomorrow.