Animals not inanimate objects, says Delhi HC, grants custody of rescued dogs to adoptive parents

The question before Justice Girish Kathpalia was not whether the original owner was abusing the dogs, as it would fall under the purview of the trial court.

Custody battle

The case stems from a raid on the house of one of the respondents, who was allegedly found to have kept his dogs in deplorable conditions. They were rescued and handed over by the police to an NGO. The organisation handed over the adoptive custody of the dogs to the petitioners before the Delhi High Court.

However, the original owners claimed custody of the dogs and his plea was allowed by the trial court, which directed the release of the rescued dogs to him.

Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the petitioners moved the Delhi High Court. Their plea here challenged the trial court’s orders dated August 11, 2025 and January 30, 2026, on the release of the three canines. The case in the trial court involved the offence under Section 11 (treating animals with cruelty) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

‘Emotional trauma, voiceless animals’

The question before the Delhi High Court was not whether the original owner was abusing the dogs, as it would fall under the purview of the trial court.

“The issue before this Court is the emotional trauma which those voiceless animals would be undergoing after being separated from their adoptive parents (the present petitioners),” the order said.

The three pet dogs that are the subject of this petition, the Delhi High Court said, are female toy Pomeranians, Mishti, Coco, and Cotton, all of whom are distinguishable because they answer the call by their particular names, according to the petitioners’ counsel.

Considering their welfare, both sides agreed on the petitioners having the custody of the pets, the court noted and said, “To be specific, respondent number 3 (original owner) present in courtroom has been explained the entire discussion in Hindi and he, in the interest of those three dogs, is willing to return those dogs to the petitioners with the condition that in case ultimately he gets acquitted, custody of those three dogs would be returned to him, subject to their welfare.”

The Delhi High Court modified the orders of the trial court, directing the release of Mishti, Coco and Cotton to the petitioners by Friday.

“…with consent of both sides, the impugned orders are modified, thereby directing that the present respondent no.3 shall release those three female pomeranian dogs namely Mishti, Coco and Cotton to the present petitioners through the IO by tomorrow; and the superdarinamas (bond) of Rs 50,000 each shall be submitted by the present petitioners before the learned trial court tomorrow itself, assuring that the petitioners would produce those three dogs before the trial court at the stage of evidence, if so directed,” the court held.

Finding Laika

In a case in which a policeman faced action after a service dog named “Laika” went missing but was found in about a month, 25 years ago, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that the punishment of permanently stopping his increments for not informing his superiors about the dog’s disappearance was not proportionate to the offence.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal was hearing the plea filed by a head constable, Jagmal Singh, who was employed in the Dog Squad, CID Unit, and was punished with forfeiture of two increments for not informing his senior about the disappearance of the service dog “at the earliest”.