A Delhi court has delivered a stinging verdict against the Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre (SGACC), holding that the NGO illegally took custody of ten pet dogs and unlawfully transferred them to third parties. The court dismissed SGACC’s revision petition and upheld trial court orders directing that the dogs be returned to their lawful owner, Vishal.
The order was passed on January 23, 2026, by Additional Sessions Judge Surabhi Sharma Vats at the Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an FIR registered in July 2025 under allegations of cruelty to animals. During the investigation, ten dogs belonging to Vishal were seized and handed over to SGACC. The trial court later directed that custody of the dogs be returned to their owner.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Clears Legal Ground on Bike Taxis, Says State Must Frame Rules Before Allowing Services
SGACC challenged this order, arguing that returning the dogs to the accused would defeat the purpose of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The NGO claimed it was acting solely in the interest of animal welfare.
Vishal, however, alleged that during the months his dogs remained with the NGO, several were given away without his consent. He also claimed that some female dogs were sterilised without permission and that one dog was substituted with another.
Court’s Observations
After examining the record, the court found serious procedural violations in the seizure and custody of the animals. It noted that the NGO members themselves accompanied the police, examined the dogs, and immediately took custody - without any independent veterinary examination or magistrate’s order.
Read also:- HP High Court Denies Bail to 61-Year-Old in POCSO Case, Cites Gravity of Allegations and Child’s Statement
“The PCA Act does not vest any power in private NGOs to assume custody or medically examine animals on their own,” the court observed, stressing that such actions created a clear conflict of interest.
The judge pointed out that Section 34 of the Act requires seized animals to be produced before a magistrate or authorised veterinary officer, a safeguard that was ignored.
“This omission strikes at the very foundation of the seizure,” the court said.
The court was also critical of the NGO’s failure to comply with repeated directions to file a detailed status report on animals in its custody. The persistent non-compliance, the judge remarked, raised “an unavoidable inference” that disclosure could expose serious irregularities.
Read also:- S. 482 BNSS | Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable Under SC/ST Act: Kerala HC
Findings on Animal Welfare Claims
Rejecting the argument that welfare concerns justified continued custody, the court underlined that no judicial finding of cruelty had been recorded against the owner.
“Cruelty cannot be presumed; it needs to be proved in accordance with law,” the bench observed.
The court further held that sterilisation of privately owned dogs without consent violated the Animal Birth Control Rules. Addressing the admitted amputation of a dog’s tail, the judge remarked,
“The tail is not a dispensable object… To cut it without consent is nothing less than violence wrapped in justification.”
Read also:- No Privacy Breach in Lawful Probe: Supreme Court Backs ED's Right to Examine Seized Mobile
Decision
Concluding that SGACC’s actions were “vitiated by procedural illegality, bias, and colourable exercise of power,” the court upheld the trial court’s orders directing release of the dogs to their owner.
The revision petition was dismissed, and the court imposed a cost of ₹2 lakh on SGACC, directing the amount to be deposited in a government animal welfare fund.
The court reiterated that animal welfare laws “cannot be misused by private entities acting beyond their legal authority,” bringing the proceedings to a close.
Case Title: Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre vs State & Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 175/2025
Date of Decision: 23 January 2026
