Supreme Court Asks Women Dog Feeders Alleging Harassment And Assault By 'Vigilantes' To Lodge FIRs, Approach High Courts

While hearing the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court today orally asked women dog feeders levelling allegations of harassment and assault by "anti-feeder vigilantes" to lodge FIRs and move jurisdictional High Courts for relief.

The bench highlighted that the acts amount to a criminal offense and asked the aggrieved individuals to approach the authorities for registration of FIR. It reasoned that the Supreme Court cannot sit over all individual cases.

"If someone is harassing women, it's a crime under the Penal Code. Get FIRs registered. There are procedures available for how to get FIRs registered", said Justice Vikram Nath.

A bench of Justices Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. It refused to address the claim of violence against women dog feeders and care-givers at the top Court level, saying it's a law and order problem and remedies are available to the aggrieved under penal law.

Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, for an animal rights activist, told the Court that dog feeders, especially women, are being molested, beaten, disrobed and defamed by "vigilantes". She cited some incidents, including one in Ghaziabad where a woman was allegedly slapped 19 times in less than a minute, yet no FIR was registered. She claimed that in some Haryana societies, bouncers have been hired to tackle dog feeders.

The senior counsel further contended that in an act of passive endorsement, the authorities are not registering FIRs of women dog feeders who are in fact approaching them. On this, the bench said that remedy can be availed before the concerned Magistrates and/or High Courts (in view of Lalita Kumari judgment). It further noted that its earlier orders were limited to presence of canines on public roads and in institutions; as such, what was being argued was beyond the scope of the matter.

Pavani then raised an issue about rampant unregulated breeding of dogs and exotic imports. It was argued that adoption of foreign breeds is one reason for large number of indigenous strays. In response, the bench said that these issues do not arise in the case at hand.

"You address us on issues we are dealing with. Don't make this a platform for your other objects", said Justice Nath.

"If there is any illegality in the import or breeding of the imported dog breeds, then there are provisions in the Act. You take recourse of that. This has got nothing to do with the stray dogs issue. Import of our order is very clear - restricted to stray dogs or street dogs. Nothing to do with breeding. Tomorrow you will say why cheetahs have been imported, why not take care of the local breeds? This is too much" added Justice Mehta.

Later, Pavani stressed on some derogatory statements allegedly made against women dog feeders. "There are anti-feeder vigilantes who have assumed the role of enforcing the Court orders", she said. When she questioned how someone can have license to use derogatory words against a woman dog feeder in the garb of Court's order, Justice Nath said, "license is there with the public to criticize everyone in derogatory and whatever language they wish to do. We are criticized. In very derogatory language. We don't react".

She however emphasized on the repulsive nature of the remarks. "It's to the extent of saying that women sleep with dogs for satisfaction! Who says that? I anticipate that day where your lordships might have to take suo motu of 'A City Hounded My Molesters and Women Feeders Paying the Price'...it's happening across the country".

In response, Justice Nath said, "take action...[this Court order has not given license to people to talk like this]...if people are talking like this, you take action against them".

In the context of the article on feral dogs that Justice Mehta yesterday asked counsels to read and come prepared with, Pavani highlighted a difference between stray and feral dogs. She claimed that the author himself has acknowledged in the article that the problem is man-made and arises due to garbage/waste.

Some of the intervenors prayed for constitution of a Committee by the Court to give expert opinion, highlighting its recent order in the Aravalli Hills case, where a new high-powered expert committee has been proposed by a CJI-led bench.

Court must ensure implementation of both MCD Act & Prevention of Cruelty Act: Intervenors

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat (for animal rights activists Sonia Bose and Avnish Narayan) argued that the case did not represent a conflict between dogs and humans. Rather, it's a case where the State has failed in its statutory duty to balance public safety and animal welfare. He acknowledged that stray dogs can be seen as a menace in some situations, but stressed that the State has failed in implementation of both the MCD Act and the Prevention of Cruelty Act. The senior counsel emphasized that the Court must monitor and ensure implementation of both these Acts to balance public safety and animal welfare.

"Buck has been passed over to the Court. There's a problem on the ground - dogs at some level have in certain situations become a menace. That's one side of the equation. Even one life lost is violation of Article 21 right. But what today State is suggesting is this - because we have failed in duty, we will scapegoat one for the other. That can't be. That's easy way out for it. There should be safety for both humans and animals", he said. Among other things, he suggested,

- Zoning of public spaces (that some should be stray-dogs free, like hospitals, main roads);

- Identify feeders and locations away from public paths but in dogs' territory;

- Timebound ABC Rules implementation (direct States to identify infrastructure crunch and ask them how they will build it; large number of vet hospitals and clinics are not owned by municipal corporations; State governments and municipal corporations must work together; it has to be examined which are fit to be centres);

- Every municipal area should have 1 officer who bears accountability.

Intervenor suggests online dashboard for monitoring

Senior Advocate Madhavi Diwan (for another applicant) led arguments primarily on the monitoring aspect and suggested portable ABC centres. She suggested an online dashboard at the State level that would monitor local authorities, to automate implementation and enhance transparency.

"Details of stray dog population, status of vaccination/sterilization, name and contact details of nodal officer for local area, data on dangerous dogs, whether ring vaccination has been carried out in a specified area, details of closest hospitals/clinics where rabies vaccine is available, list of feeding spots, status of availability of portable animal birth control units [must reflect on the dash board]...Portal units can help address the problem wherever it's seen. Animals are put under anesthesia. We monitor for the period until they recover. Then they are put back. We handed over one, Kerala government is using it", she submitted.

Don't try to glorify presence of dogs in hospitals: Justice Mehta

A senior counsel appearing for 3 applicants (including Sharmila Tagore) argued that the solution to the problem of stray dogs has to be rooted in science and psychology. He emphasized that release of a stray dog is captured in legislations and suggested an Expert Committee to analyze behavior of dogs. The senior counsel also said that dogs which do no show improvement must be put to sleep, but complete ejection of all may not be the answer. It was also said that such dog (which does not show improvement) has to be identified as "aggressive" by a Committee.

The senior counsel also highlighted the case of a dog that walked across the United States alongwith monks. When he referred to a dog "Goldie" at AIIMS, Justice Mehta cautioned that no one should try to glorify dogs in hospitals. "She was taken in operation theatre also? Any dog in street is likely to have ticks. Imagine if they enter hospitals. Arguments being made far removed from reality. Even slight suggestion that dogs should be allowed in hospitals...don't try to glorify them! We will tell you at the end of arguments the reality", the judge remarked.

Subsequently, the senior counsel stressed on the importance of re-vaccination of stray dogs (thrice a year) to tackle rabies threat and submitted that adopted of Indian breed dogs should be encouraged.

Urgent need to setup dog feeding centres: Intervenor

Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina (for an animal rights organization) emphasized the importance of setting up dog feeding centres on urgent basis. He acknowledged that stray dog population has to be decreased and apprised about the applicant's efforts in Bombay. "The minute you remove a dog, however hard you try, population of dogs in that area increases. In Bombay, we experience positive results with CSVR principle. How aggressive dogs are to be dealt with provided under ABC Rules. We know Court does not intend to starve the dogs to death", he said.

Amici not domain experts, November 7 order had trappings of a final order: Intervenor

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for organization-All Creatures Great and Small) raised certain constitutional issues and prayed for constitution of an Expert Committee, highlighting that Amici Curiae appointed by Courts are not domain experts. The senior counsel referred to the CJI bench's recent order in the Aravalli Hills case, where a new expert committee is being contemplated for holistic examination of the issues.

"Amici are law advisors. They are not domain experts. Your lordships should have both. Matters like this require domain expertise. In Aravalli case, 90% members of Committee were bureaucrats. Reconsideration led to domain experts coming in. Amicus is only additional legal input. Domain experts would improve quality of the Court's order."

Singhvi further argued that for the Court to intervene in the manner that it did, there had to be a legislative vacuum (but that was not the case). "[ABC] Rules form a seamless web. This Court has held that such a web deters judicial intervention. For intervention, there has to be a legislative gap. [Citing a 2014 judgment] In case there's inaction by executive, court has obligation to enforce law. If there's vacuum, court can issue guidelines till legislature passes a law. There are many restrictions on your lordships. Till very recently, Vishaka guidelines operated without a law. For 20 years. It noted that there was a vacuum. Even Article 142 can't be used to build something for which edifice is not there", he stated.

On the "finality" of the Court's November 7 order in the present case, Singhvi said, "your lordships have passed an interim order, but it has all trappings of a final order. The elements of finality are - (a) substantive issues are decided or not (clearly they are) (b) are they permanent in nature (answer is yes) (c) expense, and (d) permanent constructions. That order had no hearing or domain experts. November order had to be a bridging gap, but nature of order is irreversible".

Stray dogs part of establishments in some cases, give institutions 6 months' time to address issue: Intervenor

Lastly, Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao (for an animal welfare organization) took to arguments and submitted that the Court's November 7 order seemed to be in the teeth of existing law. He emphasized that empathy must guide not only the conduct of individuals, but also the Court. It was also pointed out that stray dogs were mishandled at the time of picking up, pursuant to the Court's order.

The senior counsel contended that at many places, stray dogs have become part of the establishments and the Court may consider giving them 6 months' time to see if they can adopt the CSVR model and work things out on their level. "Reality is - we don't have mechanism. Doctrine of proportionality - was the Court's order the most proportionate in the available background? Animals are per se good. CSVR achieves safety. We have placed on record videos to show how directions were implemented. Several instances where dogs have become part of establishment. CLC dog population has come down. Please consider giving institutions 6 months to see if they can address issue on their own. Not talking about hospitals. I have given details of videos where dogs were mishandled", he said.

In response, Justice Mehta said, "There are many videos on YouTube about dogs attacking children and elderly, we don't want a contest".

In the context of the article (on Ladakh feral dogs) that Justice Mehta asked all counsels to read and come prepared with, Rao also submitted, "I may point out there's also an article about a pack of stray dogs which took care of a little abandoned baby until someone came to the surprise of residents. Animals are per se good".

Case Title: In Re : 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 (and connected cases)