The Supreme Court on Friday refused to issue general or omnibus directions concerning allegations of harassment faced by stray dog feeders and caregivers, making it clear that such complaints fall squarely within the domain of law and order and must be addressed through established statutory mechanisms. The court emphasised that it cannot examine or adjudicate individual incidents of alleged assault, intimidation, or molestation within the framework of its ongoing proceedings on stray dog management.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria observed that allegations involving criminal conduct must be pursued through the registration of first information reports (FIRs) and subsequent investigation by the police. The court underlined that victims have adequate remedies under the law if authorities fail to act, including the option of approaching the concerned high courts.

The bench made its position explicit while responding to submissions highlighting alleged attacks on women who feed stray dogs. “If they are molesting women, lodge FIRs. That is a criminal offence,” the judges said, adding that the Supreme Court cannot act as a fact-finding forum for scattered or anecdotal incidents. According to the bench, issuing generic directions based on individual allegations would be neither feasible nor appropriate.

The observations came during a hearing in a larger suo motu exercise being undertaken by the court on the issue of stray dog management, following reports of a rise in dog bite incidents and persistent non-compliance by municipal authorities with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. While the court has been actively monitoring implementation of these rules, it drew a clear line on Friday regarding the limits of its intervention in matters of alleged harassment of dog feeders.

Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, appearing for dog feeders and caregivers, urged the court to take cognisance of what she described as a growing pattern of vigilantism against feeders, particularly women. She alleged that groups claiming to enforce the court’s earlier directions on stray dogs were targeting feeders through intimidation and physical attacks. Pavani cited incidents from several states, including Tamil Nadu, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, and referred specifically to a case in Vellore where vigilantes allegedly entered the home of a woman feeder and assaulted her.

The bench, however, declined to entertain such individual complaints within the ongoing proceedings. “We cannot go into these individual cases. This is a law-and-order issue,” it said, reiterating that criminal allegations must be dealt with by invoking the criminal justice system. “If a criminal offence is registered, there is a procedure laid down. Avail of those remedies and set criminal law into motion,” the court added.

When Pavani argued that harassment of dog feeders was occurring across the country and therefore warranted judicial intervention, the bench remained unconvinced. It made it clear that the Supreme Court cannot issue broad directions on the assumption that such incidents are widespread, particularly in the absence of verified facts or a uniform pattern established through evidence.

The court also firmly rejected attempts to expand the scope of the proceedings to include issues unrelated to stray dogs. Submissions were made on illegal breeding of dogs, import of foreign breeds, and the need to promote adoption of indigenous dogs. The bench said these issues had no bearing on the matter at hand.

“This has nothing to do with the issue of stray dogs. Our order was confined to stray dogs,” the bench observed, clarifying that broader policy questions on breeding practices or import regulations fell outside the scope of the case. The court also dismissed arguments concerning derogatory remarks allegedly made against women feeders, noting that offensive or critical speech does not automatically invite judicial intervention unless it crosses the threshold into criminal conduct.

Friday’s hearing formed part of a continuing judicial exercise on stray dog management that has drawn nationwide attention and sparked intense debate. Earlier in the week, the same bench had clarified that it had not ordered the killing of stray dogs, nor had it dismantled the existing legal framework governing them. Instead, it stressed that its directions were narrowly tailored to address public safety concerns in specific institutional spaces.

The court reiterated that its focus has been limited to removing stray dogs from high-risk institutional areas such as schools, hospitals, transport hubs, and sports complexes. These directions, it said, were issued in the interest of public safety and in furtherance of the state’s obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect life and personal liberty, particularly of children, patients, and daily commuters.

On January 7, the bench had consistently maintained that it was enforcing the ABC Rules rather than overriding them. The judges pointed out that the real failure lay with local authorities across states and Union territories, which have neglected core obligations such as sterilisation, vaccination, creation of shelters, and proper waste management for years. According to the court, this sustained administrative failure has contributed significantly to the stray dog problem and the increase in dog bite incidents.

During Friday’s proceedings, the bench heard a wide range of submissions questioning both the effectiveness of the existing ABC framework and the permissible limits of judicial intervention in this complex policy area. One counsel argued that there could be no “one-size-fits-all” solution to the removal of stray dogs from public spaces and that the issue required a nuanced, science-based approach informed by animal behaviour and public health considerations.

While conceding that the ABC Rules may not be perfect, the counsel submitted that they deserved re-examination rather than outright rejection. He suggested differentiating between aggressive and non-aggressive dogs and referred to a dog named “Goldie” that has reportedly lived on the premises of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for years without incident.

The bench responded sharply to this line of argument, questioning the very premise of dogs being present in hospital premises. Observing that any dog living on the streets is likely to carry ticks and other parasites, the court warned that their presence in hospitals could have “disastrous consequences,” especially for vulnerable patients. The judges cautioned against what they described as attempts to “glorify” the presence of stray dogs in sensitive public spaces such as hospitals.

“Please understand the reality of what is being argued,” the bench told counsel, remarking that some submissions from the dog-lover’s perspective appeared “completely removed from reality.”

Another suggestion placed before the court involved the use of colour-coded collars to identify dogs that had previously bitten humans, with references to models allegedly used in countries such as Georgia and Armenia. The bench questioned the relevance of these comparisons, pointing out the vast differences in population size, urban density, and civic infrastructure. Urging counsel to be “realistic,” the court indicated that solutions must be grounded in India’s specific social and administrative context.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for an organisation named All Creatures Big and Small (ACGS), argued that the matter had evolved beyond a simple conflict between animal welfare and human safety and now implicated fundamental constitutional principles. Singhvi contended that the statute governing animal welfare, read with the ABC Rules, constituted a “complete code” occupying the entire field.

Describing the rules as a “seamless web,” Singhvi argued that judicial intervention is warranted primarily in the absence of legislation, not in areas where Parliament and the rule-making authority have consciously framed a detailed regulatory framework. Any attempt by the court to rework or supplant the ABC regime, he cautioned, would amount to constructing a “new edifice.”

Singhvi also pointed out that amici curiae, while valuable legal advisors, are not necessarily domain experts in animal behaviour, epidemiology, or urban planning. If the court intended to reconsider the existing framework, he suggested, it should involve subject-matter specialists. Citing the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of its earlier Aravalli order, Singhvi warned that the court’s November 7 directions carried a sense of finality and had already triggered irreversible consequences, including financial commitments by authorities.

Several other senior advocates, including Zal Andhyarujina, Rajshekhar Rao, Madhavi Divan, Shadan Farasat, and Percival Billimoria, also advanced submissions during the hearing, reflecting the wide spectrum of views on the issue.

The bench indicated that it would continue hearing the matter next week, signalling that while it remains open to examining systemic issues in stray dog management, it will not issue sweeping directions on individual allegations of harassment. By drawing this distinction, the Supreme Court has sought to balance concerns of public safety, animal welfare, and the rule of law, while reaffirming that criminal conduct must be addressed through established legal processes rather than broad judicial mandates.