On most days, senior advocate Nanita Sharma can be found at the Supreme Court of India doing what she has done for nearly four decades: representing those struggling to be heard in court. Sometimes it is a guest worker. Sometimes it survived after a communal riot. And sometimes, as India recently witnessed, it is an animal that cannot speak for itself but still deserves protection under the law.
Sharma is no stranger to the legal spotlight. She has worked with changing judicial philosophies, political shifts, and decades of evolving constitutional debate.
Still, as she stood outside the Supreme Court building this week, her voice shaking as she responded to the court’s directive on stray dogs, the scene drew national attention.
Her response was emotional, quiet and steady. For her, this moment was not only about stray dogs. It was about how the legal system treats those without power, whether human or animal.
The initial legal journey
Sharma started practicing law in 1988 after joining the Delhi Bar. She studied at Holy Child School and later at Jesus and Mary College in Delhi. The path was not glamorous, as she often points out, but was built slowly through years of consistent courtroom work.
In 1995, she qualified as an official advocate of the Supreme Court, a certificate held by a limited number of lawyers that allows them to file and hear cases directly in the superior court.
Since then, she has appeared before the Supreme Court, High Courts, Tribunals and Consumer Commissions in various areas of law: constitutional matters, property disputes, criminal matters, consumer rights and intellectual property.
Her story spans issues that have influenced the national conversation, from the Babri Masjid controversy to the Delhi riots cases, the Jamia Millia hearings and petitions related to migrant workers during the COVID-19 lockdown.
She served as Amicus Curiae assisting the court as a neutral expert and was nominated to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee by the former Chief Justice of India. She also engaged in pro bono matters and filed public petitions in support of vulnerable populations.
Sharma entered the legal profession in the late 1980s, at a time when women were still rare at the highest levels of the Indian judiciary. She did not come from a legal or political dynasty, but built her practice independently.
Colleagues note that she has managed to keep a seat in a courtroom historically dominated by senior male lawyers, which requires persistence, thick skin and consistent work. She is also known for staying away from media propaganda and working within the legal system to push for change.
A case that once again sparked a public debate
Sharma came into the limelight this month when the Supreme Court ordered states and union territories to remove stray dogs from schools, hospitals, bus and railway stations and other public places. The order also stated that dogs after being sterilized should not be released into the same areas, but instead should be kept in shelters.
The court cited an increase in dog bite cases and public safety concerns. However, for Sharma, the order raised a legal and ethical problem. Animal birth control regulations require that dogs be released back to their original location after being sterilized.
Speaking to reporters outside the court, she said she believed the decision would have far-reaching consequences for street dogs and that the principle of relocation risks ignoring established animal protection measures.
“There shouldn’t be such injustice to such voiceless animals,” she said, fighting back tears. “I still believe in divine justice.” She also drew attention to practical issues: shelters must be humane, and public safety must be held accountable. Her position did not dismiss the safety concerns, but questioned whether resettlement itself would solve the problem and whether the implementation would protect both citizens and animals.
A long history of public interest work
Apart from his legal practice, Sharma serves as the Secretary General of the Conference on Human Rights (India), a civil society organization that has been active since the 1980s.
She filed petitions on issues related to public health, the ethics of sterilization, and dignity-based rights. Her career has been marked by sustained institutional involvement rather than activism through campaigns or digital advocacy.
Her peers often describe her as part of a generation of lawyers who believe that legal duty and civil responsibility are not separate ideas. This includes handling pro bono matters and representing those who cannot afford legal aid.
What is her recent position
The stray dog case has sparked conversations that go beyond a single directive in the courtroom. It raised questions of public safety, compassion, state responsibility and the limits of animal rights. Sharma’s statement did not attack the court or dismiss citizens’ concerns about security. Instead, he emphasized the tension between legal procedure, ethical obligations, and emotional response.
Her stance reflects the way she has often viewed the law: through the lens of dignity and protection for those with limited ability to defend themselves.
In a system driven by evidence, law and argument, she combines legal skills and emotional clarity. Whether citizens agree with her opinion or not, her presence at the center of this debate has reminded many why longtime advocates shape the moral rhythm of government agencies as much as court rulings.
Nanita Sharma’s career has been defined by slow, steady work in India’s legal establishment. Today, her voice is part of a complex national conversation about law, safety and compassion.
And for many watching this week’s proceedings, it represents a quieter but more resilient version of advocacy: one based on due process, consistency and a belief that vulnerable people deserve protection, no matter who they are.
