Stray dogs: SG Tushar Mehta's absurd remarks shame Modi govt’s legal intellect

New Delhi: A deplorable statement from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, has cast a shadow over the legal discourse, exposing a troubling lack of intellect and sensitivity. Mehta, who also represents the Modi government in courts, argued on the matter of stray dogs like a roadside troll.

Mehta’s WhatsApp University-style assertion that non-vegetarians cannot be dog lovers because some people post videos of eating meat raises a critical question: Is this the calibre of legal mind guiding the nation’s top law officer under the Modi administration?

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: there is a very loud vocal minority and silent suffering majority. I have seen people posting videos of eating meat etc and then claiming to be animal lovers.

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 14, 2025

During a Supreme Court hearing on the contentious stray dog relocation issue in Delhi-NCR, Mehta doubled down on a narrative that pits public safety against compassion, suggesting that a “vocal minority” of animal lovers, implied to be hypocritical meat-eaters, overshadows a “silent suffering majority.”

Also read: Stray dogs ban: SC says whole problem due to 'inaction' of local authorities, reserves order

This bizarre logic not only insults a significant section of India’s population but also risks alienating dog lovers who could sway political sentiment against the government if it continues to treat this as a non-issue.

With the court reserving its order after a heated debate, Mehta’s remarks stand out as a reckless attempt to score rhetorical points, undermining his office’s credibility.

Also read: Stray dog order decoded and why it misses the root causes

The context is a suo motu case initiated by a two-judge bench, later escalated to a three-judge panel led by Justice Vikram Nath, following conflicting directives on relocating stray dogs.

The initial order, passed on August 11 by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, mandated the immediate roundup of all strays in Delhi-NCR to shelters, citing a “grim” rabies and dog-bite situation.

Also read: Revealed: What prompted the Supreme Court’s suo motu stray dog order

Mehta supported this, claiming that there were 3.7 million dog bites and 305 rabies deaths in 2024, though WHO estimates suggest a higher unreported toll.

Yet his leap to label non-vegetarians as unfit to care for animals is a leap too far, rooted not in evidence but in populist pandering.

This was no reasoned legal argument but a mindless jibe, reminiscent of fringe social media rants rather than the deliberation expected from a Solicitor General.

Meat consumption, regulated and culturally accepted across India, bears no logical connection to one’s capacity for compassion towards strays.

Does eating chicken disqualify someone from loving their pet dog?

Mehta’s insinuation is as absurd as it is offensive, ignoring the diverse dietary habits of a nation where vegetarianism is a choice, not a moral mandate.

If this is the intellectual depth of the Modi government’s top advocate, it’s a damning indictment of its legal leadership.

Nobody denies the real fear or the fact that India bears about 36% of the global rabies burden, as per a 2021 study. But blanket vilification of non-vegetarian dog lovers may cost the government heavily.

The Modi government must reconsider its stance if it values political stability. Dog lovers, cutting across dietary lines, are a vocal constituency, and Mehta’s remarks could turn this into a political liability.

His comments echo the insensitivity of a regime quick to target the voiceless, be it strays or dissenters, while shielding systemic failures.

Has he urged mandatory civic education or enforced gutkha bans to address urban filth that attracts strays? Has he held municipal commissioners in contempt for missed targets, as builders do for violations?

The Solicitor General’s role demands rigour, not rhetoric.

With his totally nonsensical remarks, Mehta has exposed the Modi government’s shaky grip on intellectual credibility.