Justice Vikram Nath on Stray Dogs Case and Public Spotlight

Thiruvananthapuram, August 31: It’s not every day that a Supreme Court judge finds himself chuckling at the idea of being “blessed” by dogs. But Justice Vikram Nath, while speaking at a legal conference in Kerala this week, did just that, and the room loved it.

“I’m thankful to the stray dogs for making me known to the entire civil society,” he said, his voice carrying both sincerity and a wink. “Not just in this country, but the world over.” The audience, made up of senior judges, environmentalists, and policy thinkers, cracked up. Some shook their heads, half-smiling. He wasn’t exaggerating.

What began as a dry legal order on managing Delhi’s stray dog population had, almost overnight, turned Nath into an unlikely public figure. And instead of brushing off the attention, he leaned into it with humor, humility, and just the right hint of legal gravitas.

The Case That Put Him on the Map

It started on August 11, when a two-judge Supreme Court bench ordered that stray dogs picked up in Delhi-NCR shouldn’t be released back onto the streets. The reaction was swift and loud. Animal welfare groups slammed the order. Urban local bodies were caught off guard. On social media, it spiraled into outrage and memes in equal measure.

Ten days later, on August 22, a different bench headed by Justice Nath stepped in. His ruling dialed things back: stray dogs should be vaccinated, sterilized, and returned to their territories unless they show signs of rabies or pose a serious threat. It was more or less in line with the Animal Birth Control Rules, but it came with a different tone.

Where the earlier order felt punitive, Nath’s version was measured and grounded in public health but also in constitutional empathy. It struck a chord.

Now, two weeks later, he’s joking about it at a podium in Thiruvananthapuram.

“Even the Dogs Are Giving Me Blessings”

There was something refreshingly human in the way he spoke. “In addition to human blessings,” he said with a smile, “I have their good wishes too.” The line, playful and oddly moving, spread fast. Within hours, it was quoted across news portals, clipped into Instagram reels, and repeated by legal interns who rarely get to laugh during court recess.

Justice Nath gave credit where it was due. He thanked Chief Justice B. R. Gavai for assigning him the case. “I never imagined it would become this big,” he added, his tone half-resigned. But it did. And he didn’t dodge it.

Not Just a Joke A Serious Legal Message

Beneath the quips, though, there was an urgent argument. Speaking at the Regional Conference on Human–Wildlife Conflict, jointly organized by NALSA and KeLSA, Nath made it clear that the real issue runs deeper than dog bites or public nuisance.

“We have multiple laws for forests, wildlife, and disaster response, but they’re not speaking to each other,” he warned. “We need a unified legal framework. Otherwise, we’re just reacting case by case.”

His remarks were backed by constitutional ground. Article 21, he reminded the gathering, has evolved to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. “That includes safety from unchecked animal aggression, but it also includes protection for animals themselves,” he said.

It was a tightrope argument. Protect citizens, yes. But not at the cost of systemic cruelty. And definitely not through ad hoc policy.

A Judge, Not a Rock Star. But Still.

For what it’s worth, Justice Nath didn’t sound like he was enjoying the attention. He seemed slightly amused, maybe a little bemused, by how the internet had made him into a symbol of what exactly, he didn’t say. But he didn’t flinch from it either.

“He’s always been a straight-shooting judge,” said one retired high court justice who attended the event. “But this… this was different. He showed a side of the judiciary we rarely see witty, vulnerable, and connected.”

That vulnerability may be why the moment struck a chord. In an age when public trust in institutions is shaky, here was a senior judge not just laying down the law but engaging with its impact on people, on animals, and on his own reputation.

More Than A Footnote in Legal History

Back in the capital, the case is far from over. Municipal bodies are now scrambling to comply with the new order. NGOs are watching closely. And pet lovers? They’re relieved, but wary. The problem isn’t going away. But thanks to Nath’s intervention, the conversation has at least found some legal and moral clarity.

And maybe that’s the legacy of this odd chapter in Indian jurisprudence. A legal dispute that started with fear and confusion ended with a reminder funny, yes, but also meaningful that law can be humane without being weak.

Justice Vikram Nath didn’t ask for the spotlight. But when it came, he stood in it grinning, grounded, and, as he put it, “blessed by dogs.”

Stay ahead with Hindustan Herald — bringing you trusted news, sharp analysis, and stories that matter across Politics, Business, Technology, Sports, Entertainment, Lifestyle, and more.
Connect with us on Facebook, Instagram, X (Twitter), LinkedIn, YouTube, and join our Telegram community @hindustanherald for real-time updates.

Ananya Sharma

Senior Political Correspondent – [email protected] – Web

Covers Indian politics, governance, and policy developments with over a decade of experience in political reporting.

Breaking