Delhi court rejects animal care centre's plea for more time to file report on seized dogs

New Delhi, Jan 16 (PTI) A Delhi court on Friday refused to grant further time to the Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre to file a detailed status report and to release 10 pets seized during the investigation.

On January 13, the court had criticised the animal care centre for failing to comply with a judicial order to return custody of the seized dogs. The court described the centre's explanation as "totally unsatisfactory" and "evasive." Additional Sessions Judge Surabhi Sharma Vats was hearing a plea from the animal centre seeking more time to comply with the prior order. The court directed that the dogs be returned to their owner, Vishal, named in an FIR registered at the Jagat Puri police station.

In an order dated January 16, the court said, "Keeping in mind the sensitivity of the matter involving living and sentient beings, it is directed that the dogs in question be released forthwith in favour of respondent no 2 (Vishal) strictly in compliance with the orders dated August 11, 2025 and December 24, 2025 passed by the trial court since there is no stay granted by this Court in execution of these orders".

The court noted that despite repeated directions of the trial court, the animals had not been released, and pleas were being taken to justify their continued custody.

"The revisionist cannot be permitted to frustrate the execution of court orders by taking false, evasive and bogus pleas, particularly when the issue pertains to living, sentient beings whose welfare cannot be allowed to suffer on account of lame excuses or administrative delay," the court said.

The counsel for the animal centre argued that, due to a lack of time, they were unable to prepare the detailed status report requested by the court on January 13 and sought additional time.

The plea was opposed by the dog owner, who argued that the animal centre had consistently defied court orders and had no authority to retain the animals on the grounds of alleged cruelty.

The respondent's counsel, Mayank Sharma, submitted that according to a March 2020 circular of the Animal Welfare Board of India, only designated authorities are empowered to inspect or investigate complaints of animal cruelty, and no finding of cruelty had ever been recorded against the owner by any competent authority or court.

"Conduct of the revisionist/applicant (animal centre) indicates that it is motivated by commercial gain rather than animal welfare and is potentially involved in illegal animal trafficking, and therefore, the continued retention of the animals with the revisionist cannot be allowed," he said.

Dismissing the plea, the court then ordered the centre to submit a status report by the next hearing detailing all animals taken into custody, animals returned to owners, deaths during custody with veterinary records, adoptions or transfers, current status and location of each animal, and mechanisms for identification and record-keeping.

"Status report as directed vide order dated January 13, 2026, is duly required to appreciate the arguments of both parties and for the effective adjudication of this Revision Petition; therefore, the revisionist/ applicant is again directed to furnish a detailed, comprehensive, and sworn status report positively on the next date of hearing," the court said. PTI SKM MPL MPL