The Supreme Court of India has indicated that both civic authorities and individuals who feed stray dogs may be held liable for injuries or deaths resulting from stray dog attacks. The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria, is monitoring compliance with previous orders mandating the removal of stray dogs from public institutions and the implementation of sterilisation and vaccination measures. The Court has expressed concern over the increasing number of dog bite incidents and the lack of effective action by municipal authorities.
According to Live Law, the Court remarked that those concerned about stray dogs should take responsibility by adopting them, rather than allowing them to roam freely and pose risks to the public. The bench stated that it is likely to fix heavy compensation for the state in cases of dog bites, deaths, or injuries, and also hold dog feeders accountable for such incidents.
As highlighted by Bar and Bench, the Court questioned the focus on incentivising the adoption of stray dogs, suggesting that similar attention should be given to orphaned children on the streets. The bench noted that arguments in court have predominantly represented the interests of dog lovers, with insufficient advocacy for the safety and rights of human beings affected by stray dog attacks.
During the hearing, statements from the bench emphasised that the effect of a dog bite can be lifelong, and questioned who should be held responsible when a child is killed by dogs fed by a particular organisation. The Court reiterated its intention to impose heavy compensation on states and to make feeders liable for damages in such cases.
Arguments presented during the proceedings included calls for the removal of stray dogs from residential complexes and institutional premises, as well as suggestions for scientific models to control the dog population and reduce bite incidents. Intervenors also sought modifications to the Court’s earlier directions, advocating for the re-release of sterilised dogs in their original locations.
“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.
Legal representatives for animal welfare organisations argued for a balanced approach, highlighting the ecological role of dogs and the need for compassion in line with statutory requirements. They cautioned against culling and stressed the importance of proper implementation of Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, noting that inadequate infrastructure and limited ABC centres contribute to the ongoing problem.
Public reactions to the Court’s stance have been mixed, with recent coverage revealed that some view the Court’s approach as harsh, while others support the need for stricter measures to ensure public safety. The debate continues over the best way to balance animal welfare with the protection of human life and well-being.
“The problem has multiplied manifold due to prolonged inaction. Allow us to take the authorities to task and set the process in motion,” Justice Nath urged during the hearing.
Further developments as details emerged include the Supreme Court’s ongoing review of compliance with its orders, and its consideration of additional measures to address the stray dog issue in both urban and wildlife areas. The bench has called for cooperation from all parties to implement statutory provisions and ensure effective action by state and local authorities.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.