New Delhi, January 13, 2026 – The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a stern warning to states and individuals who feed stray dogs, indicating that they may soon be held financially and legally accountable for attacks, bites, and deaths caused by stray canines. The top court’s observations came during the hearing of a case addressing the growing issue of stray dogs and cattle roaming on streets and public spaces, raising safety concerns for citizens, especially children.

The bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria, questioned why stray dogs should be allowed to roam freely, chase people, and cause injuries. The court suggested that states may soon face “heavy” liabilities for every dog bite or death resulting from a dog attack. Furthermore, the court also raised the possibility of making dog feeders personally liable for attacks caused by animals they feed or shelter.

“For every dog bite, for every death, we will be likely fixing heavy compensation for states for not making requisite arrangements. And also liability to dog feeders. You take them to your house, keep them; why should they be allowed to roam around, biting, chasing? The effect of a dog bite is lifelong,” the Supreme Court observed, as reported by law portal Bar and Bench.

The bench’s remarks emphasized the long-term consequences of dog attacks. Dog bites can cause not only physical injuries but also psychological trauma, fear, and medical complications such as rabies, which may have lifelong repercussions. By holding states and feeders accountable, the Supreme Court appears intent on pushing for stricter enforcement of existing laws and better management of street animals.

The court also posed pointed questions regarding accountability. It asked, “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?” This reflects the court’s concern for public safety and the principle that responsibility must be clearly assigned when preventable harm occurs.

Challenges in Managing Stray Dogs

One of the key issues highlighted during the hearings is the unpredictability of dog behavior. During a previous hearing on January 7, 2026, the court considered arguments from animal welfare advocates who contended that empathy and humane treatment of animals can prevent attacks. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, argued that understanding and respecting a dog’s space reduces the likelihood of aggression.

“If you invade their space, they will attack,” Sibal told the court, suggesting that human behavior significantly influences the likelihood of dog bites. However, Justice Vikram Nath countered this argument, emphasizing the inherent unpredictability of animals. “It is not just about biting but also the threat caused by dogs. How can you identify? Which dog is in what mood in the morning, you don’t know,” Justice Nath asked. The exchange underscored the difficulty of relying solely on behavioral understanding to manage stray dogs in public spaces.

Proposed Measures and Solutions

The Supreme Court also explored potential solutions to address the stray dog menace while balancing the welfare of animals. Senior advocate Sibal suggested that unruly or aggressive dogs could be captured, sterilized, vaccinated, and then released back to designated areas. This aligns with the sterilization and vaccination programs that are part of India’s street dog management policy but highlights the need for more structured and enforceable mechanisms.

In addition, the court signaled that stricter enforcement and accountability mechanisms are necessary to prevent fatalities and injuries. States may need to implement better monitoring systems, create secure shelters, and ensure that dog feeders do not allow animals to roam freely in public spaces. The Supreme Court’s suggestion that dog feeders could be held liable indicates a potential shift toward shared responsibility between government authorities and citizens who feed stray animals.

Background: Supreme Court’s Earlier Directives

This case follows previous directions issued by the Supreme Court to manage stray dogs in institutional and public areas. On November 7, 2025, the court directed the removal of stray dogs from schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands, railway stations, and other public institutions. The dogs were to be relocated to designated shelters after sterilization and vaccination, in line with the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001.

Despite these directives, stray dog attacks have continued to occur, raising concerns about enforcement and compliance. Reports of attacks, some fatal, particularly involving children, have prompted the court to revisit the issue and consider more stringent measures. The Supreme Court’s warnings signal that states must proactively manage street animals and ensure the safety of citizens, especially in densely populated urban areas.

Public Safety Concerns and Legal Implications

The Supreme Court’s comments highlight the broader public safety challenges associated with stray dogs in India. Stray dog attacks can cause severe injuries, psychological trauma, and, in some cases, fatalities due to rabies or untreated wounds. By holding states and feeders liable, the court seeks to establish a legal framework that ensures accountability and encourages preventive measures.

The court’s discussion also touches on a fundamental question of liability: when an avoidable tragedy occurs due to negligence, who should bear the responsibility? In this context, the Supreme Court is emphasizing that both government authorities and individuals who feed or shelter stray animals must act responsibly to prevent harm. The proposed imposition of “heavy” compensation for every bite or death could create a significant incentive for both states and citizens to follow proper management protocols.

Balancing Animal Welfare and Human Safety

While the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of animal welfare, it is equally focused on ensuring human safety. The court is exploring solutions that maintain humane treatment of stray dogs through sterilization and vaccination while preventing them from posing a threat to citizens. This approach aligns with India’s Animal Welfare Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which mandate humane treatment, combined with public safety requirements under civil and administrative law.

The hearing also highlights the challenges of urban wildlife management in India, where growing populations and limited resources complicate the task of maintaining safety in public spaces. By considering liability for dog feeders, the court is extending the responsibility for safety beyond government agencies to private individuals who contribute to the presence of animals in public areas.

Next Steps and Anticipated Outcomes

The Supreme Court is likely to continue hearings on this matter, potentially issuing binding directives for states and individuals involved in feeding stray dogs. The possibility of assigning monetary liabilities and legal responsibilities signals a major development in the regulation of street animals, emphasizing that human safety will not be compromised in the name of animal welfare.

Legal experts suggest that if implemented, these measures could compel states to significantly improve infrastructure for stray dog management, including more shelters, sterilization programs, and stricter monitoring of public spaces. Dog feeders may also need to adopt responsible feeding practices to avoid potential legal consequences.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s warnings reflect a growing concern about public safety and accountability in India’s urban and semi-urban environments. By holding both states and individuals liable for stray dog attacks, the court seeks to establish a system in which preventive measures, humane management, and citizen awareness work together to protect human lives while ensuring ethical treatment of animals. The hearing underscores the delicate balance between animal welfare and public safety, and signals that decisive action may soon be required to address the issue comprehensively.