How Many Barks Make a Dog Aggressive? And Other Questions Raised by the SC Order

The order has brought relief to dog-lovers across India, but raises several questions that need to be addressed.

The Supreme Court's order is being celebrated as a win for animal lovers, but the responsibility of enforcing it humanely and effectively now lies with municipal authorities.

(Photo: Aroop Mishra/The Quint)

How do you define an ‘aggressive dog’?

Is it the number of barks? The frequency? The target of the barks?

How many barks is too many, then?

Does it matter if the dog was provoked? Hit with sticks or stones, as they often are?

And who decides all this? Will Delhi’s ever-active Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) now have “Dog Barking Committees”? Will they issue Aadhar-like certification for the non-aggressive dogs?

These are some of the questions the Supreme Court’s 22 August order on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR raises. The judgement was a modification of the court’s 11 August directive, which ordered all stray dogs in the capital to be picked up, sterilised, and not be released. Amending the order, the court has now said that the dogs will be released to their respective localities after vaccination and sterilisation.

It has brought a sigh of relief to dog-lovers across the country, who had mobilised at a pace that most aandolan jeevis could only dream of.

But after the relief come questions— and confusion—on what some parts of the order mean, and how the capital plans to enforce it.

Aggression, According to Whom? 

Calling the earlier ruling "too harsh," the three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Metha, and NV Anjaria said in the 20-page order that dogs that are picked up shall be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated, and released back to the same area from which they were picked up. This is in line with Rule 11(19) of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, established under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, for managing the population of stray animals.

The court noted that this rule was scientifically carved out as it prevents the scope of overcrowding in the dog shelters and that relocating them to the same environment is compassionate treatment.

However, this relocation will not apply to the dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected, and those that display "aggressive behaviour." They will, "under no circumstances," be released back to the streets.

And that’s where the questions start.

There’s much left to be interpreted from the top court’s order, but especially its usage of the term 'aggression.' Whether or not a dog is behaving aggressively often depends on who you are asking. A bark could be a greeting for someone like me but a sign of aggression for someone like my mother, who is terrified of dogs.

There’s justified fear among animal right activists that this wide ambit for interpretation could lead to abuse of the order. In a country where RWAs regularly dictate what residents eat, whom they invite home, and what festival they celebrate, who is to say they won't use this order to drive out all stray dogs?

“If we don’t define ‘aggression’ clearly, whoever wants to get rid of dogs will simply term them as 'aggressive',” Ayesha Christina Benn, who runs Neighbourhood Woof in Delhi, an Animal Birth Control (ABC) centre, told The Quint.

“This is not to take away from the fact that dogs can be aggressive and can bite, but aggression is not a permanent state of being. A dog cannot maintain aggression for a long period of time, the body won’t be able to handle the stress. Aggression also always has a trigger. It may not always be visible to you, but it is there."

Ayesha Christina Benn

Public Feeding 

The order also prohibits the feeding of stray dogs on the streets. Those found doing so will be liable under the law. The court justified the move by citing “untoward incidents caused by unregulated feeding of stray dogs” which “created great difficulties for the common man walking on the streets.”

Instead, municipal authorities are required to create exercises for creating dedicated feeding spaces for the stray dogs in each municipal ward. The feeding areas shall be created keeping in view the population and concentration of stray dogs in the particular municipal ward.

On paper, this seems fair. But how workable is it in reality? Dogs are territorial beings. They live in lanes, parks, parking lots, and famously mark their territories. How are they going to be herded to their new “canteens," wherever those might be? Behaviour change does not happen overnight.

“Feeding spots can’t just be decided by authorities. Doing this randomly, especially outside the territory of the dog, can have negative repercussions,” said Ayesha. “Another issue is that ABCs have no rabies isolation centres, which increases the risk for dogs who are there for sterilisation. There need to be separate rooms and also separate isolation vans.”

The Cost of Justice

The court has also said that individuals and NGOs that approached the court have to deposit Rs 25,000 and Rs 2,00,000, respectively, within seven days. Failing this, they shall not be allowed to appear in the matter any further. The money will be utilised in creating infrastructure and facilities for stray dogs under municipal bodies.

It is understandable that the court was flooded with PILs in this case. But to 'fine' individuals for exercising their right to approach the court does not seem in good faith. Should access to justice be limited this way? Is fighting for the rights of animals a matter only for the rich, then?

Additionally, should the onus of the money and accountability of such shelters be on individuals? In the past one week, several NGOs have taken in more dogs than they could realistically manage. Have they been compensated for that?

Enforcement and Oversight

The order directs each municipal authority to create a dedicated helpline number for reporting incidents of violation of the above directions.

But who will verify these complaints? Will municipal workers be expected to snatch biscuits out of a dog’s mouth? What if the dog finds food in the trash, who gets fined then? Will the fictional Dog Barking Committee take on the task of tracing the source of the three-day old roti?

What can we learn from history? Delhi's municipal corporations have a dismal record for the way dogs were picked up for sterilisation ahead of the G20 Summit in 2023. People for Animals noted that the MCD had picked up dogs in an "illegal, cruel fashion," and it received complaints from people spotting 'screaming and yelping' dogs being 'dragged by neck.'

The Supreme Court's order is being celebrated as a win for animal lovers, but the responsibility of enforcing it humanely and effectively now lies with municipal authorities, and also on individuals, who must move beyond the dismissive "Oh you're protecting the biter dogs" mindset to recognise that we all want the same thing: public safety, while treating animals humanly.

Municipal authorities must engage with all stakeholders, including animal handlers and feeders, who are often best placed to identify dog behaviour and adopt best practices.

Significantly, the court has also expanded the scope of the matter beyond Delhi-NCR, saying that the ABC Rules are uniform all over the country and there are petitions pending in various high courts, more or less dealing with the same issue.

But who will monitor all this? Overstretched municipal corporations who are anyway struggling to implement existing rules, or will an expert committee be constituted? For the order to work, the court must lead with clarity and a systemic framework.

(Tanishka Sodhi is Senior Assistant Editor at The Quint. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed above are the author's own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)