NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a stern warning to states and Union territories (UTs), signalling that it may impose heavy compensation for every dog bite and death caused by stray dogs, while also holding individuals and institutions who feed these animals accountable for attacks that result in serious injury or lifelong consequences. The observations came during ongoing hearings on stray dog management, as the court expressed frustration at decades of inaction that have allowed the problem to escalate exponentially.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria made it clear that the onus of ensuring public safety cannot rest solely on municipal authorities, and that dog feeders must assume responsibility for the animals they care for. “Take them to your house, keep them. Why should they be allowed everywhere — roaming around, frightening people, biting and chasing? Remember that the impact of a dog bite is lifelong,” the bench observed, highlighting the persistent risks posed to vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly.

The court noted that decades of non-compliance with statutory provisions, including the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, had compounded the problem. “For every dog bite, for every death, we are likely to fix heavy compensation to be paid by states for not making requisite arrangements and not doing anything. And we will also fix liability on dog feeders,” the bench stated. The judges underscored that institutional feeders — including schools, hospitals, and other organisations that allow stray dogs to remain on their premises — could also be held accountable if attacks occur under their watch.

A Longstanding Problem Ignored

The proceedings are part of a long-running case concerning stray dog management that has exposed chronic non-implementation of the ABC Rules across the country. During the hearings, the court observed that the problem has multiplied “a thousand times, a zillion times” due to inaction over decades. The bench questioned the rationale behind allowing stray dogs to roam freely in urban and institutional spaces, stressing that feeding animals without taking responsibility for their behaviour is no longer acceptable.

The Supreme Court criticised both the states and Union territories for failing to establish adequate sterilisation, vaccination, and shelter facilities, and for not effectively controlling stray populations. Senior counsel Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for animal trusts and shelters, read out parliamentary debates from 1957, arguing that legislative intent had always been to implement humane population control measures. The bench, however, expressed impatience with prolonged arguments, noting that hearings were beginning to resemble public debates rather than judicial proceedings. “We are on the fourth day and arguments are not concluding,” the bench said.

While reiterating that the court was not questioning the ABC Rules or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act themselves, the judges emphasised the need for concrete action. “There has been a failure on their part in the last 75 years and they have created the worst situation. Therefore, we want to pass effective orders,” the bench said, stressing that legal provisions alone are meaningless without enforcement.

Balancing Safety and Compassion

Senior advocate Guruswamy argued that culling stray dogs is neither effective nor humane, and that sterilisation remains the only viable solution. She highlighted that funding for ABC centres is often under-utilised, and that statutory provisions are deliberately designed to balance public safety with compassion. “No argument allows for cruelty and culling,” she submitted.

In contrast, senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing an organisation, called for extending directions to areas with institutional presence, including airports, where free-ranging dogs pose specific hazards. Citing reports of nearly 55,000 feral dogs in Ladakh threatening endangered wildlife, he stressed the ecological and operational risks posed by unregulated populations. Datar urged the court to address feral dogs in such high-risk areas, arguing that measures were already available and no new expert committee was needed.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh highlighted the ecological role of stray dogs, particularly in rodent control, and cautioned against framing the debate as humans versus animals. He urged the court to consider the broader ecosystem implicationsof interventions. Senior advocate Pinky Anand, meanwhile, stressed the need for compassion in line with the law, while acknowledging that limited ABC infrastructure sometimes leads to ineffective management and aggressive replacement of removed dogs.

The bench repeatedly noted that feeding stray dogs without assuming responsibility for their conduct was unacceptable. “We are also going to fix accountability on those who are feeding dogs. Take the dogs home or take them inside your campus and houses. Why should they be everywhere?” the judges emphasised. They highlighted recent incidents, including a dog bite at the Gujarat High Court, to illustrate that the issue extends even to court premises.

Institutional Accountability and Public Safety

The court raised pointed questions about institutional accountability, asking who should bear responsibility when vulnerable individuals, such as children or the elderly, are attacked. “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, signalling that failure to act could carry financial and legal consequences.

The Supreme Court also clarified its earlier position on law enforcement and animal rights, noting that it had never directed the killing of stray dogs. Instead, the focus is on removing animals from high-risk areas, ensuring vaccination, sterilisation, and public safety, particularly in schools, hospitals, transport hubs, and other sensitive spaces.

The bench’s firm stance reflects the court’s concern for public safety under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. By highlighting the long-term consequences of dog bites, the court stressed that states and municipalities cannot shirk their responsibilities, and continued non-compliance may now trigger monetary compensation and accountability measures.

Next Steps in the Case

The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings on January 15, indicating that it intends to move beyond discussions and ensure effective implementation of statutory measures. Authorities are expected to respond to directions concerning sterilisation drives, vaccination campaigns, shelter management, and the regulation of feeding practices by individuals and institutions.

By linking dog bite liability to both states and feeders, the court appears to be establishing a framework that balances animal welfare with public safety, while creating incentives for compliance with existing laws. The ongoing proceedings aim to ensure that stray dog management is no longer ignored, and that citizens, particularly children and the elderly, are protected from preventable harm.

As the hearings progress, the Supreme Court is likely to issue binding directives with financial penalties and accountability measures, potentially transforming the way India addresses stray dog populations and enforces statutory obligations.

---