Will Hold Authorities & Dog Feeders Liable For Every Stray Dog Attack, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it may impose liability on both civic authorities and dog feeders for any injury or death caused by stray dog attacks.

The Court remarked that persons who are concerned about stray dogs must take them to their homes instead of letting them "loiter around, bite and scare" the public.

The oral observation came while the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the suo motu case related to the stray dogs issue.

"For every dog bite, death or injury caused to children or elderly, we are likely going to fix heavy compensation by the state, for not doing anything. Also, liability and accountability on those who are saying we are feeding dogs. Do it, take them to your house. Why should dogs be loitering around, biting, scaring people?" Justice Vikram Nath observed during the hearing.

"Who should be held accountable when dogs attack a 9-year-old? The organization that is feeding them? You want us to shut our eyes to the problem," said Justice Mehta. 

"Who will owe responsibility when stray dog attacks someone? Stray dog can't be in possession of anyone. If you want [a pet], take license," the judge added.

The bench is monitoring the compliance with its order passed in November last year as per which local authorities were mandated to remove stray dogs from the premises of bus stands, railway stations, hospitals, schools, campuses and other public institutions. The bench had directed that those dogs must be vaccinated/sterilized in terms of the ABC Rules and should not be released at the same spot from where they were picked up.

Several animal rights groups later filed applications seeking modification of the order, raising concerns about the Court's embargo on the re-release of the dogs. The bench had elaborately heard the parties for three days last week.

Today, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for an organization, defended the Court's November 7 order dealing with institutional areas, arguing that it was fully justified and supported by statutory rules. He contended that there was no need to constitute any new expert committee, since reports of existing committees were already on record.

Justice Mehta remarked that Datar was “the first who has come to the rescue of the order".

The senior counsel argued that stray dogs have no legal right to occupy institutional premises or other public spaces to which people have access. He submitted that if a human being cannot stay in such premises, animals cannot either, adding that relocating dogs back to such areas would amount to “animal trespass". He relied on provisions of the ABC Rules and judgments of the Madras High Court on the public's right to free passage in streets.

Raising concerns beyond urban settings, Datar referred to a separate writ petition filed by conservation groups regarding feral dogs in wildlife areas, particularly Ladakh. He told the Court that reports placed before it showed the presence of around 55,000 free-ranging feral dogs in Ladakh, posing a grave threat to critically endangered species. According to him, scientific models suggested that dog populations and bite incidents could be drastically reduced within a few years if measures were adopted.

Justice Mehta observed that the issue had now extended even to court premises (reference to a recent dog bite incident at the Gujarat High Court) and lamented that municipal staff attempting to capture the dog was attacked by “so-called dog lovers” (lawyers).

Animal Welfare Side Urges Balance  

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for an animal welfare trust, urged the Court to view the matter not merely as a human-versus-animal issue but from the perspective of ecological balance. He cited data on deaths due to snake bites to argue that dogs also played a role in rodent control and ecosystem stability.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand emphasised that the law required animals to be treated with compassion, cautioning against approaches that amounted to culling. She argued that inadequate infrastructure, including the limited number of ABC centres, was a key reason for the problem, and warned that removing dogs without replacing them could lead to more aggressive animals occupying those spaces.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy described the issue as an emotional one, prompting Justice Mehta to remark that emotions so far appeared to be “only for dogs". When Guruswamy produced parliamentary debates to support her submissions, Justice Mehta observed that Members of Parliament were “an elite class".

Justice Nath urged all parties to allow the Court to “take the authorities to task” and set the process in motion, noting that the problem had multiplied manifold due to prolonged inaction. Justice Mehta added that the proceedings were beginning to resemble a “public platform rather than a court proceeding".

Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria submitted that the root cause of the problem was ineffective implementation of the ABC programme, pointing to the absence of any proper census of stray dogs. He suggested the appointment of a committee chaired by the Attorney General to conduct a census and review implementation.

The Bench, however, noted that most of these arguments had already been advanced. Justice Mehta questioned how population figures could be asserted in the absence of any census, calling such claims “totally unrealistic.”

Billimoria also cautioned against reliance on media reports as evidence, which prompted Justice Nath to ask whether he was suggesting the petitions should not have been registered at all. Billimoria clarified that his concern was only about over-reliance on news reports, which he said sometimes created an “echo chamber."

Bite Victim's Account

The Court also heard one Kamna Pandey, a dog-bite victim, who recounted being mauled two decades ago and later discovering that the dog who attacked her had been subjected to prolonged cruelty (stoning and kicking). She underlined that fear-induced defensive aggression is a major factor and shared her experience of adopting the dog that bit her, which, she said, never bit anyone thereafter. She emphasized need for a more holistic, non-confining approach, including dog homes in institutional settings.

Another counsel urged that the November 7 order should also apply to rural areas.

The hearing will continue on January 20 at 2 PM.

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