Stray Dogs Case: Supreme Court Weighs Victims’ Safety and Animal Rights, Hearing Adjourned to Jan 13
Supreme Court continued its detailed hearing in the stray dogs case, with the bench considering submissions from activists and victims on humane control, public safety, and enforcement of animal welfare laws before adjourning the matter to January 13
Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria had continued hearing the stray dogs case, weighing public safety concerns against animal welfare and the need for humane population control measures
The Supreme Court today continued its extensive hearing in the stray dogs management case on Friday, as a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria heard detailed submissions from animal rights activists, NGOs, and representatives of citizens affected by stray dog attacks.
For two consecutive days, the Bench examined the issue of stray dogs in institutional and residential premises, with intervenors seeking modifications to the Court’s earlier directions. They urged that stray dogs be released in the same area after sterilization and suggested adopting scientific and humane population control models capable of curbing dog-bite incidents within a few years.
On the other hand, victims’ groups pressed for the removal of strays from housing societies, citing increasing cases of dog attacks and concerns about safety in residential areas.
Appearing for an animal rights activist, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani drew attention to the “harassment and assaults on women dog feeders” by vigilante groups. She alleged that authorities were failing to act or register FIRs despite repeated complaints.
“Across the country, women feeding dogs are being beaten and humiliated. In Haryana, societies have hired bouncers to target feeders,” Pavani said, adding that “authorities’ silence amounts to endorsement.”
Justice Vikram Nath advised her to approach local police or magistrates, citing the Lalita Kumari judgment, which mandates registration of FIRs for cognizable offences. However, he clarified that the Court “cannot handle individual criminal cases”, calling it a law and order issue.
When Pavani raised concerns about derogatory remarks aimed at women feeders, Justice Nath responded, “People can use derogatory statements for anyone. Things are said about us also. Take action.”
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for animal rights activists Sonia Bose and Avnish Narayan, emphasized that the issue was “not dogs versus humans” but a failure of the State to balance public safety and animal welfare.
“Even one life lost to dog attacks is a violation of Article 21, but scapegoating animals for administrative failure is not the solution,” he argued, urging the Court to enforce existing laws under the Municipal Corporation Acts and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Farasat proposed a six-point framework including zoning of public spaces, identifying feeding zones, time-bound implementation of Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, accountability of municipal officers, and collaboration between State and local authorities.
Justice Mehta praised the submission for seeking a balance between human safety and animal welfare.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan proposed an online monitoring dashboard at the State level to track sterilization efforts and accountability of nodal officers, ensuring transparency and compliance.
Counsel for other applicants, including Actor Sharmila Tagore, suggested a scientific approach over “complete ejection of dogs,” emphasizing behavioral evaluation and microchipping of dogs to identify aggressive behavior.
“Once aggressive dogs are identified and treated, they can be reintegrated into society. In other countries, marking systems like orange or red flags work effectively,” counsel submitted.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, however, cautioned against unrealistic comparisons, remarking, “What’s the population in those countries? Be realistic.”
In a lighter moment, Justice Mehta quipped, “Dogs and cats are enemies; maybe we should promote more cats, since they’re enemies of rodents!” drawing laughter in the courtroom.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for All Creatures Great and Small, argued that the issue was now “about constitutional limits and institutional responsibility.” He contended that the Rules form a seamless legal web, and the Court should step in only if there is a legislative vacuum.
Singhvi further urged the inclusion of domain experts, not just amicus curiae, in advisory roles, stating that “matters like these require scientific expertise beyond legal interpretation.”
Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, representing another animal welfare group, supported Singhvi’s view, calling for “empathetic and proportional judicial intervention.” He requested that institutions be given six months to demonstrate compliance with humane population control measures.
Justice Mehta emphasized that while compassion for animals was vital, public safety must remain paramount, citing multiple videos showing stray dog attacks on children and elderly persons. “We don’t want a contest of videos. The reality is, the problem must be addressed both humanely and practically,” he said.
After a day of detailed arguments, the Court adjourned the hearing to January 13, 2026, for further submissions from remaining parties.
Case Title: In Re: "City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price"
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria
Hearing Date: January 9, 2026