"Do Street Dogs Have Private Houses?": Supreme Court Asks While Hearing Plea Against HC Ban On Public Feeding Of Strays

Justice Khanna observed that all street dogs could not be taken to shelter homes or kept in captivity. "This is an extreme position which is unacceptable," he said, "Wherever required, to deal with their numbers, relocation can be contemplated. But, where the population is within control, let the street dogs be where they are."

Emphasising the need to strike the right balance between human safety and animal welfare, Justice Khanna observed, "When there are human beings and motor cars, for instance, there are bound to be accidents. Conflicts of interest are inevitable. Otherwise, we will not need the Indian Penal Code and other criminal provisions. We will not need courts. Just as humans can do wrong, stray dogs may also cause a nuisance. Therefore, we have to be conscious of both sides." He added, "There may be other consequences if dogs are not there. There may be other issues which arise. That is why something has to be done at this juncture. This [High Court] order may have its own consequences and repercussions."

The Animal Welfare Board, however, informed the top court that if the dogs were "left hungry", they were likely to become more violent. "If the guidelines circulated by the Animal Welfare Board to all the states are followed properly, then this issue can be resolved," the Bench was told.

Justice Khanna also acknowledged that street dogs, if not fed by the communities in which they belonged, would have to resort to scavenging in the trash for food. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, on behalf of an applicant opposing the interim stay on the High Court order, said, "The literature has shown that dogs feeding near garbage dumps may lead to the spread of severe diseases." This comment was met with a sharp retort from one of the advocates arguing for the October 21 order to be held in abeyance. "That is why they must be fed by us."

Justice Khanna also repelled the contentions of another counsel who tried to justify the High Court order, saying, "What the High Court has done is simply ban the feeding of dogs in public places." "Where do street dogs live? Do they have private homes?" the Judge asked rhetorically, answering that street dogs lived in public places, and must, therefore, be permitted to be fed in public places.

While pronouncing the interim order, the Bench directed the municipal corporation to designate areas in public places that could be used for feeding stray dogs. Justice Khanna suggested employing the services of sweepers who clean the roads, to inform the dog feeders of the demarcated feeding areas. "This will not take more than two days if you really want to carry out this exercise. Forget about the objections, do this proactively," Justice Khanna said.

Case Title

Swati Sudhirchandra Chatterjee & Ors. v. Vijay Shankarrao Talewar & Ors. [Diary No. 35297-2022] and other connected matters