“People Are Being Bitten, Dying”: Supreme Court Raps States, Hears Victims and Animal Rights Groups on Stray Dog Menace
Supreme Court heard the stray dogs case and flagged the ecological impact of feral dogs, referring to a report on rare wildlife in Ladakh
The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing its suo motu case concerning the stray dog menace across the country, with a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria closely monitoring compliance with its earlier directions on public safety, animal welfare and institutional responsibility.
At the outset, the Bench made it clear that the day’s hearing would accommodate all viewpoints. “Today we will hear everyone. The victims, the haters, the lovers,” the Court remarked, signalling a broad-based examination of the contentious issue.
The proceedings focused on compliance with the Court’s earlier directions requiring State governments and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to remove stray animals from highways, and mandating fencing of government and private educational and health institutions within eight weeks to prevent dog bites and accidents.
Amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal informed the Court that NHAI had prepared a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and identified nearly 1,400 kilometres of vulnerable highway stretches. However, NHAI had taken the position that once such stretches were identified, the responsibility shifted to the respective State governments.
The Bench expressed dissatisfaction with this approach, observing that NHAI could not absolve itself of responsibility. The Court noted that in the past 20 days alone, two judges had met with accidents caused by stray animals on highways, with one still suffering spinal injuries. “It’s a very serious issue,” the Court said.
Agarwal further submitted that while the Court’s order envisaged placing stray dogs and cattle in shelters, this would require significant infrastructure, manpower and expansion of Animal Birth Control (ABC) centres. He also informed the Bench that several major States, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Punjab, had failed to file compliance affidavits.
Animal rights activist Vandana Jain highlighted the absence of reliable data on the stray dog population, arguing that effective sterilisation and shelter planning was impossible without accurate numbers. She stressed public awareness, sterilisation and community participation, suggesting that higher taxes on foreign-bred dogs could encourage adoption of indigenous dogs.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that animal welfare must balance competing interests. He submitted that decisions regarding stray dogs in gated communities should be left to Resident Welfare Associations through democratic processes, warning that unrestricted insistence on animal presence could create serious difficulties for residents.
Several victims and counsel appearing for victims urged the Court to prioritise public safety, citing alarming dog bite statistics and alleged inadequacies in rabies management. Calls were also made to amend the existing ABC Rules, which were described as insufficient to address the scale of the crisis.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for animal welfare interests, stressed that the issue was non-adversarial and advocated the globally accepted Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release (CSVR) model. He cautioned against mass removal of dogs, warning of the “territorial vacuum” effect, where new dogs would quickly replace removed ones.
The Bench, however, pushed back, observing that dogs on roads posed accident risks regardless of biting incidents. “Prevention is always better than cure. Roads have to be clear,” the Court said.
Senior Advocates K.K. Venugopal, Colin Gonsalves, Anand Grover and others echoed concerns over infrastructure deficits, statutory mandates under ABC Rules, and the risks of mass impounding. They sought the constitution of an expert committee to provide scientific and data-driven solutions.
The Bench clarified that it was giving a patient hearing to all stakeholders due to complaints that voices were not being heard. The matter was directed to continue as part-heard, with further arguments scheduled for January 10 at 10:30 am.
Previously, the Court had declined to intervene immediately against rules framed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on the handling of stray dogs, telling petitioners that the Court would “play a video” at the next hearing to test competing claims of what constitutes humanity.
On November 3, the Court was informed that compliance affidavits were filed by all states and union territories as per its order on the stray dogs issue. It had also recorded the presence of the Chief Secretaries as ordered by it recently. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had submitted that victims of dog bites should also be heard in the matter. He had referred to various intervention applications that have been filed before the Supreme Court by the concerned individuals.
Case Title: In Re: "City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price"
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria
Hearing Date: January 7, 2026