Stray Dogs Case: Supreme Court Warns of Holding State, Dog Feeders Liable for Attacks

After three days of intense hearings last week, the Bench continued examining the issue of stray dogs in institutional premises and the failure of municipal bodies to effectively implement sterilization and control measures. The Court will next hear the matter on January 20 at 2 PM.

Appearing for a conservation group, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar defended the Court’s earlier order dated November 7, which restricted stray dogs from institutional areas. He said the order was “fully justified and supported by law”, arguing that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules cannot override public safety.

“There’s no definition of street dogs in the Rules. No animal can gain the right to remain in institutional premises or gated campuses,” Datar argued, urging the Court to extend the same directions to airports and hospitals.

Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, “Suppose there’s a residential society where 95% don’t want dogs; should the 5% who do decide for everyone? When municipal authorities tried to capture dogs, they were attacked by so-called dog lovers. Even courts have become unsafe.”

The Bench hinted at imposing compensation for every incident of dog bite or fatal attack.

“For every dog bite, death or injury to children or elderly, we are likely to fix heavy compensation on the State for not doing anything,” Justice Vikram Nath said, adding that accountability could also extend to those feeding dogs in public areas. “Do it at home, why should dogs be littering around, biting, scaring people?”

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing animal welfare groups, said the problem required compassion and scientific control, not culling.

“Killing dogs does not work. The legislature recognizes that culling has failed. The ABC Rules are not just about sterilization; they’re an effort against confinement and cruelty,” she argued.

Senior Advocates Pinky Anand, Vikas Singh, and Percival Billimoria also pressed for scientific and humane management. Anand said compassion must guide policy: “We eradicated TB through public health measures, not by eradicating patients.”

Datar, however, maintained that inaction by authorities had worsened the crisis, noting, “In Ladakh alone, there are 55,000 free-ranging feral dogs threatening wildlife and public safety.”

The Court expressed frustration over repeated submissions and lack of concrete solutions. Justice Nath said: “Allow us to take authorities to task so we can set the process in motion. The problem has multiplied a thousand times because of their inaction.”

Calling the hearing “a public platform rather than a court proceeding,” Justice Mehta emphasized the need for enforceable action rather than emotional debate.

The matter will now be taken up for further hearing on January 20 at 2 PM.

Appearing for an animal rights activist, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani had drawn 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 had said, adding that “authorities’ silence amounts to endorsement.”

Justice Vikram Nath had 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.