Kapil Sibal’s “They Never Bite Me” Remark Draws SC Response

January 7, 2026

Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing before the Supreme Court in a hearing concerning stray dogs, said that the animals “never bite me,” a comment that elicited a notable response from the bench during arguments on the controversial matter involving the management of stray dogs in public areas.

The remark came as Sibal sought to highlight his personal experience with strays while arguing on broader issues related to the court’s directives on canine management across various institutional spaces including educational campuses and hospitals.

Supreme Court’s Reaction to the Statement

A three‑judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria responded to Sibal’s comment by observing that no one can read an animal’s mind — especially whether it is “in a mood to bite or not.” The court underscored that personal accounts cannot reliably inform judicial decisions on public safety and animal behaviour.

The bench elaborated that dogs could pose risks regardless of individual experiences, noting the difficulty in predicting when a dog might become aggressive. The reaction highlighted the Court’s emphasis on objective evidence and broader societal concerns rather than anecdotal impressions.

Context: Stray Dogs Case and Public Safety

The hearing is part of a larger Supreme Court consideration of stray dog management in Delhi‑NCR and other regions, following rising incidents of dog bites and concerns over public safety. Authorities and petitioners have debated measures including relocation, sterilization, vaccination, and sheltering of stray canines.

Earlier in the proceedings, Sibal and other counsel representing animal welfare interests argued for humane approaches like the Capture‑Sterilise‑Vaccinate‑Release (CSVR) model. The Court and advocates have clashed on balancing animal welfare with human safety particularly where dog populations intersect with schools, hospitals and busy public spaces.

Broader Discussion at the Hearing

During the same session, the bench also discussed the practical challenges of implementing stray dog directives, including the need to clear roads and public spaces to reduce accidents and protect community members. Justices pointed out that even if dogs do not bite, they can still cause hazardous situations through movement on busy streets and areas with heavy traffic.

The apex court’s remarks on personal experiences versus empirical concerns reflect its effort to steer the debate toward objective public safety considerations while hearing arguments from both sides.