The Supreme Court on Friday continued its intense hearing on the management of stray dogs across the country, grappling with competing concerns of public safety and animal welfare. A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria heard a wide range of arguments from animal rights activists, NGOs, victims’ groups, and senior advocates, reflecting the complexity of the issue.
The case, In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”, has drawn national attention as reports of dog-bite incidents and public protests continue to rise.
Background of the Case
For the second consecutive day, the Bench examined challenges surrounding stray dogs in residential societies and institutional premises. Several intervenors sought changes to earlier directions of the Court, arguing that dogs should be released back into the same locality after sterilisation, as mandated under existing Animal Birth Control (ABC) norms.
Read also:- Thiruparankundram Deepam Case: Madras HC Warns Collector, Police of Contempt for Defying Court Orders
They contended that scientific and humane population control methods could significantly reduce dog-bite incidents within a few years, without resorting to mass removal of animals from their habitats. On the other side, victims’ groups demanded the removal of stray dogs from housing societies, citing repeated attacks on children, elderly residents, and daily commuters.
Concerns Raised by Animal Rights Activists
Appearing for an animal rights activist, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted what she described as a disturbing pattern of harassment against women who feed stray dogs.
“Across the country, women feeding dogs are being beaten and humiliated. In Haryana, societies have hired bouncers to target feeders,” she told the Court, alleging that police authorities were often reluctant to register complaints.
Justice Vikram Nath responded by pointing to the settled law under the Lalita Kumari judgment, which makes registration of FIRs mandatory for cognisable offences. However, he made it clear that the Supreme Court could not convert itself into a forum for individual criminal grievances.
Read also:- Supreme Court Steps In: Anticipatory Bail Granted to Overseas Tech Professional in Pune Criminal Case
“These are law and order issues. Take them to the local police or magistrate,” the judge said.
When concerns were raised about derogatory remarks directed at women feeders, Justice Nath remarked candidly, “People can use derogatory statements for anyone. Things are said about us also. Take action.”
Court Observations on Balance and Responsibility
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for animal rights activists Sonia Bose and Avnish Narayan, urged the Court not to frame the matter as “dogs versus humans.”
“Even one life lost to dog attacks is a violation of Article 21,” he said, adding that blaming animals for administrative failures would not solve the problem. He pressed for strict enforcement of municipal laws and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Farasat proposed a six-point framework, including zoning of public spaces, identification of feeding areas, time-bound implementation of ABC Rules, and fixing accountability on municipal officers. Justice Mehta appreciated the attempt to strike a balance between compassion and safety.
Read also:- CBFC Cannot Reopen Cleared Films: Madras High Court Orders UA 16+ Certificate for ‘Jana Nayagan’
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan suggested creating a State-level online dashboard to monitor sterilisation drives and the performance of nodal officers, ensuring transparency and real-time accountability.
Counsel appearing for other applicants, including actor Sharmila Tagore, opposed the idea of “complete ejection” of dogs from societies. Stressing a scientific approach, the counsel suggested behavioural assessment and microchipping of dogs to identify aggression.
“Once aggressive dogs are identified and treated, they can be reintegrated into society. In other countries, marking systems work effectively,” the submission said.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, however, cautioned against drawing direct comparisons with foreign countries.
“What’s the population in those countries? Be realistic,” he observed. In a lighter moment, he quipped, “Dogs and cats are enemies; maybe we should promote more cats,” drawing laughter in the packed courtroom.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing All Creatures Great and Small, argued that the dispute had now reached the level of constitutional limits and institutional responsibility. He maintained that the existing legal framework already formed a “seamless web,” leaving little scope for judicial overreach unless there was a clear legislative gap.
Supporting this view, Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao called for “empathetic and proportional” judicial intervention, suggesting that institutions be given six months to show compliance with humane control measures.
Court’s Decision
Justice Mehta summed up the Bench’s concern by underlining that compassion for animals cannot overshadow public safety. Referring to videos of dog attacks on children and elderly persons, he said,
“We don’t want a contest of videos. The reality is, the problem must be addressed both humanely and practically.”
After a full day of detailed submissions, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing to January 13, 2026, to hear the remaining parties.
