'Stray Dog Attacks On Beaches Affect Tourism' : Supreme Court

During the hearing of the stray dogs case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday took note of incidents of dog attacks against tourists on beaches in Goa and Kerala.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter. Justice Sandeep Mehta commented that dogs are attracted to beaches due to the presence of carcasses of fish and flagged the impact of dog attacks on tourism. "That(stray dog problem) affects tourism also," Justice Mehta said.The bench expressed agreement with the suggestion made by Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal (Amicus Curiae) that stray dogs picked up from beaches cannot be released back there.Further, it deprecated the "vague" affidavits filed by some States and Union Territories regarding compliance with the earlier directions to remove stray dogs from public places. It noted that the affidavits did not give specific details about the number of dogs removed from institutions or the number of dog bite incidents.Aggarwal (Amicus Curiae) took the Court through a note prepared by him after receiving affidavits from the states/UTs. Counsels for the respective states/UTs responded to the submissions and sought time to implement further steps.Submissions remain to be advanced by a few states/UTs and the National Highway Authority of India, which the bench will hear tomorrow at 2 PM.During the hearing, the Amicus took the Court through data provided by States/UTs of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir.He highlighted the steps taken by these states/UTs in terms of the Court's earlier directions regarding identification of highway stretches where there's ingress of cattle, removal of stray dogs from institutional premises, fencing of institutions to restrain ingress of stray dogs, etc. Most states sought 3-6 months' time to implement the actions proposed to be taken by them. Some informed that requisite budgetary allocations have been made and steps to develop adequate infrastructure are underway.In the context of Assam, the bench noted that the state affidavit was totally silent on availability of manpower. The state counsel conceded that there are few dog pounds in the state but assured that requisite steps are underway and sought 3 months' time. The Amicus told the Court about the state's decision to have atleast 1 dog shelter in every town with 50,000 or more people. Considering the statistics of dog bites provided by the state, Justice Mehta expressed 'shock', noting that 1,00,066 bite incidents were reported in 2024 and 20,900 in January 2025 alone.State of Gujarat informed the Court that it is in the process of creating more pounds for keeping animals and a budget of Rs.60 crores has been sanctioned for this year, while Rs.75 crores have been sanctioned for the next year. Subsequently, Justice Mehta noted from the data produced regarding institutional premises that large, permanent infrastructure is not required to be developed by states/UTs. What is required of them is to make available "good places" where dogs can be properly taken care of.On Haryana's affidavit, the judge remarked that there was no mention of steps taken to remove stray dogs from institutions. Insofar as Jharkhand's affidavit mentioned that over 1 lakh dogs had been vaccinated and sterilized, the Court doubted the averments and questioned the state counsel about the state's manpower. "Practically impossible", remarked Justice Mehta.Later, when the bench noted that Karnataka's affidavit was also silent on the number of stray dogs picked up from institutions, Justice Nath warned that states/UTs cannot make vague statements. The judge also expressed that the bench may pass strong strictures against states/UTs giving such affidavits.When the Amicus highlighted that West Bengal's affidavit did not mention the number and capacity of dog pounds, Justice Mehta remarked that it was "as vague as it can be".On the other hand, Maharashtra's counsel informed the Court that the state has developed an online dashboard which would become operational in a month and provide real-time statistics on dog bites, sterilization, vaccination, ABC centres, etc.Notably, Justice Mehta also opined that boundary walls are not mandatory for institutions, etc. and fencing may suffice in some cases. The bench also noted that such fencing/boundary walls are not only crucial to prevent ingress of stray dogs, but also to protect the institutions' property.Case Title: In Re : 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 (and connected cases)Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Stray Dog Attacks On Beaches Affect Tourism' : Supreme Court

Debby Jain

Tags