CASE NAME: Sunil Malhotra & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: W.P. (CRL) 581 of 2026
COURT: Delhi High Court
DATE: 16 April 2026
QUORUM: Justice Girish Kathpalia
FACTS
When the premises of Respondent No. 3 was raided several dogs were found in deplorable conditions and were rescued. They were subsequently handed over to a NGO, who gave these dogs up for adoption to the Petitioners.
Respondent No. 3 claimed the ownership of the three dogs and filed an application for superdari. The trial court allowed the same and directed the petitioners to release the dogs to Respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court the petitioners filed for an appeal and thus approached the Delhi High Court.
ISSUES
- Whether custody of rescued animals should be determined solely based on ownership claims?
- Whether the welfare and emotional well-being of animals should be a determining factor in granting superdari?
- Whether trial court orders granting custody to the alleged owner required interference?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 11, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
- Principles governing custody (superdari) of property/animals
- Doctrine of animal welfare and best interest of the animal
ARGUMENTS:
PETITIONER
The petitioners argued that they had obtained the custody of the said dogs through legal adoption from the NGO and they had also formed a strong emotional bond with them.
The dogs were rescued from the premises of the respondent no. 3 allegedly from cruel conditions and returning them to the respondent no. 3 would cause emotional distress to the dogs.
It was further contended that custody of animals cannot be equated with custody of inanimate objects and welfare of the animals should be kept in mind while making a decision.
RESPONDENT
Respondent No. 3 claimed ownership over the dogs and as its original owner he was entitled to its custody through superdari during the pendency of the trial.
ANALYSIS
The High Court analysed that dogs and other animals are not mere property and are capable of forming emotional bonds with people and its surroundings.
While clearly distinguishing between custody of inanimate properties and living beings, the Court observed that the welfare of the animals must be given utmost importance while adjudicating matters relating to them and not on rigid ownership rights.
The Court also observed that the dogs were identifiable and responded to their names (Mishti, Coco, and Cotton) and was convinced that they had formed an emotional bond with their adoptive caregiver. It highlighted that if separated them from the petitioner it would amount to causing emotional trauma to the animals.
The Court also clarified that the question of cruelty alleged on the Respondent No. 3 would be decided during the trial, however, interim custody would prioritise the well being of the animals.
During the proceedings, the pirates arrived at a mutually agreed settlement where they decided that the dogs would live under the custody of the petitioners, subject to conditions.
JUDGEMENT
The Court held that
- Animal welfare gets precedence over rigid ownership rights
- Animals cannot be treated as inanimate properties for the purpose of superdari
accordingly , the Court
- Modified the trial court’s orders
- Petitioner retains the custody of the three dogs Mishti, Coco, and Cotton
- Required the petitioners to furnish superdarinamas of ₹50,000 each
- Mandated the presentation of the dogs as and when directed
- If Respondent No. 3 is acquitted his custody claims may be reconsidered subject to welfare of the animals.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Delhi High Court is a progressive step towards animal welfare in India. By moving beyond the traditional property based approach, the Court recognised the emotional and psychological well being of the animals as the primary consideration.
By adopting ‘best interest of the animals’ the Court acknowledged animals as sentient beings rather than mere properties.
It also struck a balance between interim animal welfare and rights of alleged owner pending trial.
PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.
WRITTEN BY: AARSHITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
Read the judgement copy here :
MR. SUNIL MALHOTRA & ORS. Vs STATE, NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
