The Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a strong message on the rising menace of stray dog attacks, indicating that both civic authorities and dog feeders could soon be held legally responsible for injuries and deaths caused by such incidents. The court’s sharp remarks came during a hearing that reflected growing judicial concern over public safety, especially of children and the elderly.
Read also:- Modi Degree Defamation Case: Gujarat HC Rejects Kejriwal's Plea for Separate Trial from Sanjay Singh
Background of the Case
The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria was hearing a suo motu matter on stray dogs, along with petitions seeking changes to its earlier order of November 7, 2025. That order had directed local authorities to remove stray dogs from sensitive public spaces like schools, hospitals, bus stands, and courts, and ensure proper vaccination and sterilisation under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
Animal welfare groups later approached the court, arguing that the ban on releasing dogs back to the same spots went against humane treatment norms. The court heard detailed submissions from both sides over several days.
Read also:- Trust Is the Foundation of Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Backs Divorce Over Concealed Past
Court Observations
The tone in court was unmistakably firm. Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “For every dog bite, death or injury caused to children or the elderly, we are likely going to fix heavy compensation by the State. Accountability will also be fixed on those who say they are feeding the dogs.”
Justice Sandeep Mehta added a blunt question that echoed across the courtroom: “Who should be held accountable when dogs attack a nine-year-old? The organisation that is feeding them? You want us to shut our eyes to the problem.”
The bench also observed that people who claim concern for stray dogs should take them into their homes instead of allowing them to “loiter around, bite and scare” the public.
Read also:- Supreme Court Calls Savarkar Portrait PIL Frivolous, Warns of Costs Before Allowing Petitioner to Withdraw
Arguments from Both Sides
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar supported the court’s earlier directions, saying stray dogs had no legal right to occupy institutional premises. He pointed to dangers even in wildlife areas, citing reports of thousands of feral dogs threatening endangered species in Ladakh.
On the other hand, animal welfare lawyers urged balance. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh spoke of ecological concerns, while Pinky Anand stressed that compassion for animals is part of the law and warned against approaches that resembled culling. Others highlighted poor implementation of the ABC programme as the real root of the crisis.
Read also:- UP Gangsters Act Case:Supreme Court Confirms Bail for UP MLA Abbas Ansari
The Court’s Decision
Concluding the hearing for the day, the bench made it clear that prolonged inaction by authorities could no longer continue. It signalled that States may soon be directed to pay heavy compensation in dog-bite cases and that responsibility could extend to individuals and groups feeding stray dogs. The matter will continue to be heard, but the court’s message was clear: public safety will take priority.
Case Title: In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”
Case No.: SMW(C) No. 5/2025 (and connected cases)
Decision Date: January 13, 2026
