The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a strong warning to states, Union territories, and individuals feeding stray dogs, indicating that it may impose “heavy compensation” for every dog bite or death resulting from attacks by stray animals. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, underscored that while animal welfare laws exist, decades of inaction by authorities have created a public safety crisis that cannot be ignored.

Stray dogs, public safety, and accountability

During the hearing, the court questioned why stray dogs are allowed to roam freely in residential and public areas, pointing out that feeders must assume responsibility for the animals under their care. “Take them to your house, keep them. Why should they be allowed everywhere… roaming, frightening people, biting and chasing? Remember that the impact of a dog bite is lifelong,” the bench said.

The judges specifically highlighted the vulnerability of children, the elderly, and other at-risk groups, stressing that individuals or organizations feeding stray dogs should be held accountable if their animals cause serious injury or death. “Who should be made responsible when a nine-year-old child is killed by dogs, who are fed by a particular organisation? Should the organisation not be made liable for damages?” the bench asked.

The observations were made during the fourth day of hearings on stray dog management, which focus on rising incidents of dog bites and the chronic non-compliance by municipal authorities with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. The court indicated that continued negligence could result in both financial penalties for states and personal liability for feeders.

Historical inaction and statutory obligations

The Supreme Court expressed frustration at the repeated failure of states and municipalities to implement existing statutory measures, including sterilisation, vaccination, shelter creation, and proper waste management. The bench said that decades of inaction have caused the stray dog problem to multiply “a thousand times, a zillion times.”

“What started in the 1950s, we can continue now and take it to a logical conclusion by taking authorities to task and ensuring that concrete measures are taken,” the judges said. They emphasized that the Court’s concern is not with the validity of the ABC Rules or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, both of which remain in force, but with their chronic non-implementation. “We are not saying the ABC Rules are bad or that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should go. We want the implementation of statutory provisions,” the bench clarified.

Balancing public safety with animal welfare

During the hearing, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing animal trusts and shelters, argued that killing stray dogs is ineffective and that sterilisation remains the only viable solution. She emphasized that funds are under-utilized and that the ABC Rules reflect legislative intent to prevent cruelty and confinement. “No argument allows for cruelty and culling,” she said.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for an organization, supported the court’s earlier November 7 order on high-risk institutional areas and stressed that expert committees were unnecessary as reports were already on record. He also raised concerns about feral dogs in wildlife areas such as Ladakh, citing a population of nearly 55,000 free-ranging dogs threatening critically endangered species. Datar suggested extending directions to airports, noting that authorities often claim captured dogs must be released back into the wild.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh highlighted the ecological role of dogs, including rodent control, urging the court to balance public safety with ecosystem considerations. Senior advocate Pinky Anand stressed that, while incidents of violence had occurred, animals must be treated with compassion and removal measures must be carried out responsibly to avoid more aggressive replacements.

Court’s pointed remarks

The bench expressed dissatisfaction with the slow pace of arguments, saying the hearings had begun to resemble a public debate rather than a judicial proceeding. Referring to parliamentary debates from 1957, Justice Nath remarked, “Nobody is allowing us to pass orders, and everyone is simply arguing. We are on the fourth day, and arguments are not concluding.”

The court noted incidents where even court premises had been affected by stray dogs, including a recent dog bite at the Gujarat High Court. It also recounted cases where municipal authorities attempting to capture dogs faced resistance from lawyers who identify as animal lovers.

Moving forward

The Supreme Court reiterated that it has not ordered the killing of stray dogs. Its directions are limited to removing strays from high-risk institutional areas such as schools, hospitals, and transport hubs to safeguard public safety under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The bench made it clear that continued non-compliance with sterilisation, vaccination, shelter creation, and proper waste management measures by states and municipalities may attract financial consequences. In addition, dog feeders could be held personally liable for harm caused by the animals they feed if those attacks result in serious injury or death.

The case will resume on January 15, when the court is expected to continue its deliberations and potentially issue binding directions to ensure stricter compliance with existing laws.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s remarks signal a dual approach: protecting public safety while upholding the welfare of stray dogs, holding both authorities and feeders accountable to prevent avoidable harm.