Judiciary, Politics, and Selective Dissent in India

 AUGUST 17-2025 

 The Supreme Court of India is expected to act as an impartial guardian of the Constitution, ensuring justice without fear or favour. Yet, in recent years, the Court’s verdicts have highlighted a troubling paradox: in politically neutral matters, public dissent against its judgments is tolerated, while in politically or communally sensitive cases, the same dissent is discouraged or silenced. This selective acceptance was evident in the recent controversy over the Court’s directive to remove stray dogs from the streets of Delhi-NCR, in contrast to the silence expected over politically charged judgments such as the Ayodhya dispute and issues concerning Kashmir human rights violations.

The Stray Dog Judgement: A Case of Widespread Public Protest

On August 11, 2025, a Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed municipal authorities to round up all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR within six to eight weeks and confine them permanently to shelters. The order came in a suo motu case concerning increasing attacks on children, including infants. The directive sparked immediate outrage, particularly from animal rights groups, who called the move “unscientific” and “unfeasible,” citing the suffering it would cause to millions of dogs.

On August 14, 2025, a Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath reserved its order on pleas seeking a stay of this directive but declined to halt the ongoing removal process. During the hearing, Justices criticized civic authorities for inaction, while senior advocates like Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal urged adherence to the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, instead of mass confinement. Advocates also flagged the lack of stakeholder consultation, noting that NGOs and experts were excluded from deliberations.

Despite the public uproar, protests, and strong media debates, dissent against this ruling was tolerated. Citizens, activists, and even state leaders (such as those in Karnataka) openly challenged the order, and the matter is now referred to a larger Bench. The controversy illustrates how judgments in non-political domains provide space for vigorous public criticism.

Politically Sensitive Judgments: Expectation of Unquestioned Acceptance

The contrast becomes stark when compared to politically sensitive rulings. The Ayodhya verdict of 2019, which awarded the disputed land for the construction of the Ram Mandir, was accepted without significant space for dissent, even though large sections of society felt the decision departed from established principles of secular justice. Similarly, judgments and executive measures concerning Kashmir—including the abrogation of Article 370 and associated legal challenges—were framed as matters of “national interest.” In these instances, questioning the Court’s stance was often branded as “anti-national” or subversive.

Thus, while the stray dog ruling could be protested openly in courts, legislatures, and streets, politically sensitive verdicts demanded silence and deference, regardless of public dissatisfaction.

The Double Standard in Dissent

This pattern highlights a double standard:

• Neutral or apolitical issues (like stray dogs): Dissent is tolerated, and judgments face open challenge.

• Politically sensitive issues (like Ayodhya or Kashmir): Dissent is suppressed, and judgments are elevated beyond criticism.

Such selective permissibility undermines the ideal of an independent judiciary. If citizens perceive that the Court bends under political pressure in sensitive cases but allows criticism only where stakes are low, the institution’s moral authority is weakened.

Conclusion

The stray dog controversy of August 2025 shows how public outrage can openly challenge judicial orders when political stakes are absent. Yet, in cases like Ayodhya and Kashmir, where political symbolism is immense, the expectation is one of unquestioned acceptance. This selective tolerance of dissent erodes public trust in the judiciary and raises concerns about political influence over legal decisions. For India’s democracy to remain robust, the judiciary must not only deliver justice impartially but also allow consistent space for dissent, regardless of whether the issue carries political weight or not.