The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday issued a stern warning to state governments over the rising number of stray dog attacks, signalling that it may direct them to pay 'heavy compensation' in cases involving dog bites, deaths or serious injuries, particularly to children and the elderly. The apex court expressed strong displeasure over what it described as a near-total failure to implement statutory norms on stray animals for the past five years, despite repeated directions and mounting public safety concerns.
A bench of justice Vikram Nath, justice Sandeep Mehta and justice NV Anjaria says accountability would not be limited to governments alone, but could also extend to individuals and organisations that feed stray dogs in public spaces. “For every dog bite, death or injury caused to children or the elderly, we are going to ask the state governments to pay heavy compensation, as they did not do anything on implementation of norms in the past five years,” justice Nath observed.
Questioning the conduct of dog feeders he added, “If you love these animals so much, then why don’t you take them to your house. Why should these dogs loiter around, bite and scare people?”
According to reports, SC also questioned whether compassion shown by certain groups is selectively reserved for animals, while ignoring the safety and dignity of human beings.
During the hearing, the Bench posed a pointed question: if a nine-year-old child is killed in a stray dog attack, who should be held responsible?
It further asked whether organisations that advocate feeding stray dogs in public places should also bear accountability for such incidents.
The matter is being heard as a suo motu case initiated by the Supreme Court in July last year, following widespread concern over dog-bite incidents across the country. The Court recalled that during an earlier hearing on 8 January 2026, it had already flagged poor implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and cautioned dog lovers about their responsibilities. The Bench clarified that it had never ordered the removal of all street dogs, but had consistently emphasised humane treatment strictly in accordance with the ABC Rules.
Senior counsel Arvind Datar, appearing during the hearing, argued that the ABC Rules are primarily designed for birth control and do not adequately address the issue of aggressive or feral dogs. He submitted that even full implementation of the rules would not entirely eliminate the risk of dog attacks.
Mr Datar also contended that several provisions of the ABC Rules are vague, with key terms such as 'street dogs' remaining undefined, while pointing out that a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the rules is pending.
The Court also took note of broader ecological and public health concerns linked to stray dogs. Referring to submissions made during the hearing, the Bench observed that stray dogs can carry certain viruses and when attacked and eaten by wild animals such as tigers, can transmit diseases like canine distemper which may eventually lead to the death of the infected wildlife. The judges remarked that such risks extend the issue beyond urban safety into wildlife conservation.
The hearing saw sharp exchanges between the Bench and counsels representing animal welfare perspectives. Senior counsel Vikas Singh urged the Court not to frame the issue as a 'dog versus human' conflict, but rather as a wider animal-human conflict. He pointed out that about 50,000 people die annually due to snake bites and that monkey attacks are also reported, adding that dogs play a role in controlling rodent populations and contribute to ecological balance.
However, the Court appeared unconvinced by arguments that, in its view, downplayed human suffering. At one point, justice Mehta remarked that many lawyers seemed eager to argue for dog lovers, but few are placing the human perspective at the centre of the debate.
Reacting sharply to a submission suggesting incentives for adopting stray dogs, the judge says, “Perhaps some lawyers could argue for adoption of those children. And till now no one has argued so long for human beings.”
The case has remained in the national spotlight since last year, particularly after an earlier Bench directed municipal authorities in Delhi to round up and shelter stray dogs, triggering protests from animal rights groups. Those directions were later modified by the present Bench, which shifted the focus to vaccination, sterilisation and release in line with the ABC Rules, while expanding the scope of the proceedings to address systemic failures.
As part of interim measures, the Supreme Court on 7 November 2025 directed states and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to remove stray animals from highways and sensitive institutional areas such as hospitals, schools and educational campuses. It also ordered fencing of government and private educational and health institutions within eight weeks and directed that dogs picked up from such premises should not be released back into the same areas.
During Tuesday’s hearing, senior counsel Mr Datar strongly defended the 7th November directions, arguing that institutional premises and gated campuses cannot be treated as open public spaces where stray dogs acquire any right to remain. He urged the Court to extend the same principle to airports, courts and public parks, citing incidents where municipal officials are allegedly attacked while attempting to capture dogs from court premises.
On the other side, senior counsel Menaka Guruswamy opposed any approach that could lead to culling of stray dogs, asserting that sterilisation remains the only scientifically proven method to control population growth. She argued that the present crisis is the result of regulatory failure and underutilisation of funds allocated for ABC programmes. Ms Guruswamy invoked constitutional values, stating that compassion for all living creatures is integral to India’s legal and moral framework.
The Bench, while acknowledging the emotional nature of the issue, reiterated that its immediate concern was enforcement of existing laws. It indicated that it would soon call the Union and state governments to account and seek clear action plans to address the problem. “For every dog bite, for every death, we will be likely fixing heavy compensation for states for not making requisite arrangements,” the Court says, adding that the impact of a dog bite can be lifelong.
The hearing is scheduled to continue on 20 January 2026, with the apex court signalling that it intends to move beyond repetitive arguments and focus squarely on accountability, implementation and public safety.
