The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised sharp questions over the practice of feeding stray dogs in public places, observing that compassion for animals cannot come at the cost of human safety and accountability. Hearing a suo motu case on stray dog attacks, the apex court asked whether those advocating the feeding of community dogs in public spaces would take responsibility if a child were to lose their life in such incidents.
During the proceedings, the bench posed a pointed question on liability, asking who should be held accountable if a nine-year-old child is killed in a stray dog attack. It further asked whether organisations and individuals that actively support feeding stray dogs in public places should also bear responsibility for the consequences arising from such actions.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing in the matter, told the court that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules are primarily focused on population control and that even their full implementation may not entirely eliminate the risk of dog attacks. He argued that the existing framework does not sufficiently address the problem of aggressive stray dogs, which remains a major public safety concern in several parts of the country.
Recalling observations made during an earlier hearing on January 8, the court noted the poor implementation of the ABC Rules by authorities and reiterated that dog lovers also have responsibilities towards society at large. At that hearing, the court’s remark that dogs can sense fear in humans before attacking had attracted widespread attention on social media. Clarifying its position, the bench said it had never directed the removal or elimination of all street dogs, but had only stressed the need for humane management of strays in accordance with the law.
The court also highlighted the broader public health and ecological risks associated with stray dogs. It observed that stray dogs can carry certain viruses and, when attacked or consumed by wild animals such as tigers, may transmit diseases like canine distemper, which can prove fatal for wildlife populations.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh urged the court not to frame the issue as a dog-versus-human conflict, but to view it as a larger animal-human interaction problem. He pointed out that tens of thousands of people die annually due to snake bites and that incidents involving monkeys are also reported, underscoring the need to maintain ecological balance. Singh added that stray dogs play a role in controlling rat populations and should not be viewed in isolation.
Another senior counsel, Menaka Guruswamy, argued that killing stray dogs would not reduce their numbers and asserted that sterilisation remains the only effective long-term solution. She said the current crisis was the result of regulatory failure, claiming that proper implementation of the ABC programme could have prevented the situation. Guruswamy also flagged funding issues, alleging that several programme centres were either inadequately funded or failing to utilise the funds provided.
A woman who was herself a victim of a stray dog attack also addressed the court, stating that she was bitten by a community dog without provocation. She said she believed that effective implementation of the ABC programme could help reduce both aggression and the stray dog population. According to her, the dog had been subjected to repeated cruelty, including being kicked and stoned, which led to fear-induced defensive aggression. She said she had suffered because of the actions of others.
The Supreme Court has been hearing the matter as a suo motu case since July last year, as it continues to weigh concerns of public safety, animal welfare and administrative accountability.
