Who Is Nanita Sharma? The Supreme Court Lawyer Fighting For Stray Dogs

On most days in the Supreme Court of India, senior advocate Nanita Sharma can be seen doing what she has done for nearly four decades: representing those who struggle to be heard in court. Sometimes it is a migrant worker. Sometimes it is a survivor from a communal riot. And sometimes, as India witnessed recently, it is an animal that cannot speak for itself but still deserves protection under the law.

Sharma is not new to the legal spotlight. She has worked through changing judicial philosophies, political shifts and decades of evolving constitutional debates.

Yet when she stood outside the Supreme Court this week, voice trembling as she reacted to the court’s directions on stray dogs, the scene caught national attention.

Her response was emotional, quiet and steady. To her, the moment was not only about stray dogs. It was about how a legal system treats those without power, whether human or animal.

A Ground-Up Legal Journey

Sharma began practising law in 1988 after enrolling with the Bar Council of Delhi. She studied at Holy Child School and later at Jesus and Mary College in Delhi. The path was not glamorous, as she often notes, but built slowly through years of consistent courtroom work.

In 1995, she qualified as an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court, a certification held by a limited number of lawyers that allows them to file and argue cases directly before the top court.

Since then, she has appeared before the Supreme Court, High Courts, tribunals and consumer commissions across multiple areas of law: constitutional matters, property disputes, criminal matters, consumer rights and intellectual property.

Her case history includes matters that have shaped national conversations, from the Babri Masjid dispute to the Delhi riots cases, the Jamia Milia hearings and petitions related to migrant labourers during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

She has served as Amicus Curiae, assisting the court as a neutral expert, and was nominated to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee by a former Chief Justice of India. She has also handled pro bono matters and filed public interest petitions supporting vulnerable groups.

Sharma entered the legal profession in the late 1980s, a time when women were still rare in the upper levels of Indian litigation. She did not come from a legal or political dynasty, yet built her practice independently.

Colleagues note that she has managed to hold space in a courtroom historically dominated by senior male lawyers, something that requires persistence, thick skin and consistent performance. She is also known for staying away from media-driven advocacy and working within the legal system to push change.

The Case That Sparked Public Conversation Again

This month, Sharma found herself in the public eye when the Supreme Court directed states and Union Territories to remove stray dogs from schools, hospitals, bus and railway stations and other public spaces. The order also stated that dogs should not be released back into the same areas after sterilisation, and must instead be kept in shelters.

The court cited growing dog-bite incidents and public safety concerns. For Sharma, however, the order raised a legal and ethical problem. The Animal Birth Control rules require dogs to be released back to their original location after sterilisation.

Speaking to reporters outside the court, she said she believed the judgment would have far-reaching consequences for street dogs and that the relocation principle risked disregarding established animal welfare protections.

“There should not be such injustice to such voiceless animals,” she said, holding back tears. “I still believe in divine justice.” She also pointed to practical issues: shelters must be humane, and public safety must be addressed responsibly. Her stance did not reject safety concerns, but questioned whether relocation alone solves the problem and whether implementation would protect both citizens and animals.

A Long History of Public-Interest Work

Beyond her court practice, Sharma serves as Secretary General of the Conference for Human Rights (India), a civil society organisation active since the 1980s.

She has filed petitions on issues tied to public health, sterilisation ethics, and dignity-based rights. Her career has been marked by steady institutional involvement rather than activism through campaigns or digital advocacy.

Her peers often describe her as part of a generation of lawyers who believe legal duty and civic responsibility are not separate ideas. That includes handling pro bono matters and representing those unable to access legal aid.

What Her Recent Stand Represents

The stray dog matter has triggered conversations beyond one courtroom directive. It has raised questions about public safety, compassion, state responsibility and the boundaries of animal rights. Sharma’s statement did not attack the court nor dismiss citizen concerns about safety. Instead, it highlighted the tension between legal procedure, ethical duty and emotional response.

Her stance reflects the way she has often approached the law: through the lens of dignity and protection for those with limited power to defend themselves.

In a system driven by evidence, statutes and arguments, she brings a combination of legal skill and emotional clarity. Whether citizens agree with her view or not, her presence at the centre of this debate has reminded many why long-serving advocates shape the moral rhythm of public institutions as much as court orders do.

Nanita Sharma’s career has been defined by slow, steady work inside India’s legal structures. Today, her voice is part of a complicated national conversation on law, safety and compassion.

And for many watching the courtroom steps this week, she represents a quieter but enduring version of advocacy: one rooted in legal process, consistency and the belief that the vulnerable deserve protection, regardless of who they are.