The Supreme Court on January 13 indicated that it may fix responsibility on both civic authorities and individuals who feed stray dogs in cases of injuries or deaths caused by dog attacks, stressing that concerns for animal welfare cannot override public safety.
Hearing a suo motu matter on the growing issue of stray dogs, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria observed that those who claim to care for stray animals must also be willing to take responsibility for them, instead of allowing them to roam freely in public places.
The bench warned that it could impose heavy compensation on the state for failing to control the situation and also hold dog feeders accountable where necessary.
“For every dog bite, injury or death—especially involving children or the elderly—we are likely to fix substantial compensation on the state for inaction. At the same time, people who say they are feeding dogs must take responsibility. Take them home. Why should dogs be allowed to loiter, bite and scare people?” Justice Nath remarked.
Justice Mehta raised the question of accountability, asking who would be held responsible if a child were attacked, and said the Court could not ignore the seriousness of the issue.
The bench was reviewing compliance with its November order directing local bodies to remove stray dogs from institutional and high-footfall areas such as bus stands, railway stations, hospitals, schools and campuses. It had also ordered that such dogs be vaccinated and sterilised under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and not released back at the same locations.
Animal rights organisations later sought modification of the order, objecting to the restriction on re-releasing dogs at the same spots. Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing in the matter, argued that the November directions were in line with existing law and that no fresh expert committee was required as adequate material was already before the Court. He submitted that stray dogs have no legal right to occupy institutional premises or public spaces meant for human use, and that releasing them back would amount to animal trespass. Datar also flagged the issue of feral dogs in wildlife regions such as Ladakh, saying their rising numbers posed a threat to endangered species.
The Court noted that the problem had extended even to court premises. Justice Mehta referred to a recent dog bite incident at the Gujarat High Court and said municipal workers attempting to catch a dog were allegedly attacked by “so-called dog lovers”.
Animal welfare advocates, however, pressed for a more balanced approach. Senior advocate Vikas Singh said the issue should be viewed from an ecological perspective, while senior advocate Pinky Anand cautioned against solutions that could lead to culling, pointing instead to poor infrastructure and inadequate ABC centres. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy described the matter as emotionally charged, prompting the bench to observe that emotions appeared to be focused only on dogs, with public safety being sidelined.
Justice Nath urged stakeholders to allow the Court to hold authorities accountable and take corrective steps, noting that years of inaction had worsened the situation. Justice Mehta remarked that the proceedings were beginning to resemble a public debate rather than a courtroom hearing.
The bench also heard submissions on the need for a proper census of stray dogs, though it said population figures being cited without verified data were unrealistic. A dog-bite survivor, Kamna Pandey, also addressed the Court, recounting her experience of being attacked years ago and later adopting the same dog. She highlighted fear-driven aggression and called for a more holistic approach to managing the issue.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 20.