Stray Dogs Supreme Court Hearing Highlights: Dog feeders perform public function, empathy can't be punished, lawyer tells Supreme Court

All updates to this blog have ended.

Justice Nath asked the Amicus Curiae whether his compilation note was ready. Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, appearing as Amicus, informed the Court that inputs from seven States were still pending.

Recording that submissions from individuals and NGOs had concluded, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be listed on January 28 at 2 pm. On that date, the Court will hear the Amicus Curiae, counsel for the NHRC and representatives of all States and Union Territories.

A counsel told the court that dog feeders understand canine behaviour and are able to identify sick animals. He argued that feeding prevents scavenging, reduces fights and does not lead to the spread of disease. Citing figures, the counsel said the annual cost of feeding works out to about Rs 18,250 per dog.

Questioning the need to remove dogs, the counsel submitted that such funds could instead be used to remove people, such as orphans, from pavements. He contended that dog feeders perform a public function and are protected under Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, reflecting legislative intent and constitutional rights. The counsel said he fell within that framework as a feeder.

He also referred to international examples, including Tanzania, to argue that dog populations and bite incidents had been reduced elsewhere. Emphasising compassion, the counsel said that empathy should not be punished.

During the hearing, a counsel submitted that he was appearing for an animal rights activist and former Union minister. The Court responded by asking whether the counsel had seen the comments being made by his client, recalling that the counsel had earlier urged the Court to be cautious while making remarks.

In response, the counsel said that just as he could appear for Ajmal Kasab, he could also appear for his client.

The Court strongly objected, observing that Kasab had not committed contempt of court, whereas the counsel’s client had. The bench asked the counsel whether he had listened to her podcast, remarking that the content, manner of speech and even body language in the podcast were relevant. The Court further noted that while the counsel had urged judicial restraint in comments, the statements being made by his client warranted equal scrutiny.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan told the court that remarks made by courts often have consequences, referring to an earlier observation that dog feeders could be held responsible for dog bites, which he suggested may have been made sarcastically.

Justice JB Pardiwala Nath, however, clarified that the observation was not made sarcastically but was meant in all seriousness.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan told the court that while sterilisation programmes had shown results in some places, including Lucknow, they had failed to work effectively in most cities. He said sterilisation helps reduce the stray dog population over time and also lowers aggression among dogs.

Bhushan said the effectiveness of the programme could be improved by ensuring transparency. He suggested that designated authorities should be made responsible for responding to complaints about unsterilised stray dogs, adding that in cases of doubt, ultrasound examinations could be conducted to verify sterilisation.

The Court said it would conclude hearings from private parties, NGOs and others on the day and would fix a separate date to hear the State.

During the proceedings, one counsel sought to make submissions on international approaches and how similar situations had been handled in other countries, stating that a few countries had managed the issue very well.

Advocate Jasdeep Dhillon told the Supreme Court that the petition, filed under Article 32, concerns a six-year-old girl who was viciously bitten by a dog on June 30, 2025. He said the child received her first dose of treatment the same day, and it was later discovered that the same dog had bitten four other people in the society. She was subsequently referred to Kalawati Hospital, which stated it was not equipped to treat her, and Lady Hardinge Hospital also refused treatment. She was then shifted to RML and later to Safdarjung Hospital. On July 21, her condition began deteriorating, and she passed away on July 26.

The court inquired whether a post-mortem had been conducted. Dhillon responded that the discharge certificate listed rabies as the cause of death and emphasised that some form of liability should be fixed on the officials responsible for the apparent negligence at the hospital level.

A counsel said that animal welfare organisations applying for tenders with municipal bodies face undue interference from the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). He noted that the AWBI has only a supervisory role and has no employees outside Haryana. According to him, random animal rights activists report to the AWBI, which then halts work orders. He added that only 66 centres in India are officially recognised and said he could demonstrate how the AWBI has consistently interfered in the functioning of animal welfare organisations.

Advocate NM Kapadia told the Supreme Court that in the absence of rabid dogs, other dogs cannot be penalised. He noted that following successful ABC programs, the dog population has reduced to roughly five per kilometre in affected areas.

Another counsel highlighted the work of the student society of NLSIU, which conducted extensive CSVR studies, showing dog numbers had dropped from 40 to 20, with zero dog-bite incidents last year. However, he raised concerns over ABC centres, alleging they bill crores but operate only on paper, with cases of corruption including the removal of ovaries from dogs that are then sent to other centres instead of being destroyed immediately after counting.

A counsel representing a victim added that, due to pending suo motu action, no one is taking responsibility for dog bites, and there is currently no protection for stray dogs under the Wildlife Protection Act.

Advocate NM Kapadia told the Supreme Court that aggressive stray dogs could be treated and rehabilitated, highlighting a centre in Gujarat's Rajkot that successfully calmed hundreds of aggressive animals. He also warned against mass removal, citing that a similar effort in Gujarat in 1994 led to a surge in the rodent population, which in turn contributed to the outbreak of plague.

Advocate Rahul Kaushik told the Supreme Court that Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) could provide designated spaces for feeding stray dogs and establish sub-committees or animal welfare committees to oversee vaccination and care. He added that advisory boards could be set up across communities to manage the issue, noting that the primary reasons for dog bites are aggression and relocation of animals.

A counsel submitted that there should be no killing of stray dogs and recommended the establishment of a dedicated helpline. He added that once a comprehensive SOP is put in place, the High Courts would be better positioned to oversee its implementation effectively.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran outlined the components of India’s rabies control program, noting the availability of anti-rabies vaccines and serum, capacity building for professionals, proper animal bite management, pre-exposure prophylaxis for high-risk groups, strengthened surveillance of bites and rabies cases, enhanced diagnostic capacity, and promotion of operational research. He emphasised that the ABC rules are integral to implementing the program effectively.

In response, the Supreme Court questioned him, saying, “Since your client is an animal rights activist and a former Cabinet Minister, what has she contributed in terms of budgetary allocations to implement these schemes?” Ramachandran replied, “I cannot answer that. It is all covered under the scheme itself.”

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran opened his submissions, saying that he was appearing for an animal rights activist and former Union Minister. The Supreme Court immediately questioned him, recalling his earlier remark that the Bench should be cautious while making statements: “Have you seen the comments being made by your client?”

The counsel responded, “If I can appear for (26/11 convict) Ajmal Kasab, I can appear for her.”

The court retorted, “Kasab did not commit contempt; your client has. Have you listened to her podcast? Observe what she says, how she says it, and her body language. You advised the court to be circumspect in making comments—yet look at the comments your client is making.”

During the hearing, Justice Mehta quipped, “Why can’t we ask the dogs to carry the certificates themselves?” A petitioner responded that sometimes court remarks are misinterpreted. The bench observed that counsels need to be aware of the nature of their arguments.

The petitioner added that remarks made by the court can have real-world consequences, citing the previous suggestion that feeders be held responsible for dog bites, which he believed might have been intended sarcastically. Justice Nath clarified firmly, “We did not say it sarcastically. We said it seriously.”

The petitioner told the Supreme Court that stray dog feeders were being beaten and were taking refuge under previous court remarks. The bench responded, “These comments are made during oral arguments and conversations with counsel. They don’t make any difference. Sorry.”

The petitioner added that such statements were being televised, creating a responsibility for both the Bar and the Bench. The court agreed, noting, “Precisely for this reason, we are restraining ourselves from making many more remarks.”

A petitioner suggested that sterilisation efforts be made transparent and accountable. “There should be a system where citizens can report stray dogs that appear unsterilised, with complaints recorded on a public portal. Designated authorities should be responsible for responding, and in case of doubt, ultrasounds could be conducted to verify sterilisation,” he said.

"The system of sterilisation needs to be transparent. Mass number of dogs in shelter dogs, their behaviour may get altered, they may get more aggressive etc. therefore an expert committee must be considered."

The petitioner told the court, “My concern is different. There are so many stray dogs in the area where I live, causing complete disturbance. I have developed a sleep disorder, and my children are unable to study. Despite complaints, the authorities have taken no action, stating that they can only carry out vaccination and sterilisation. The NHRC has also not intervened. In cases of nuisance, stray dogs can be removed without being returned to the same location.”

The Supreme Court said it would conclude hearing submissions on behalf of private parties, NGOs, and other stakeholders today, and scheduled a separate date to hear the state.

One counsel sought to present international approaches to stray dog management. He noted that several countries have handled the issue effectively and submitted a two-page note summarising global practices. Citing the Netherlands as a successful example, he highlighted measures such as imposing heavy taxes on pet store purchases to reduce abandonment and mandatory microchipping. He also mentioned Bhutan’s program, prompting Justice Sandeep Mehta to ask about the country’s population, to which the counsel responded that he only wished to provide context.

The counsel further described his personal experience, saying that in his locality, stray dogs chase each other throughout the night, causing him sleep disturbances and affecting his children’s studies. He added that complaints to local authorities and the NHRC yielded no action. While ABC (Animal Birth Control) rules allow dogs to be released only after sterilisation or vaccination, BNS regulations empower local authorities to remove dogs causing a nuisance.

The Supreme Court has resumed a hearing in the case concerning stray dogs in India. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria is taking up the matter.

On January 13, the Supreme Court sharply criticised the Central and state governments over their handling of the stray dog problem, observing that all intervenors were “repeating the same arguments” and asking them to allow the court to proceed. The bench said the issue had persisted for decades, despite parliamentary scrutiny since the 1950s, and held the Centre and states squarely responsible for the situation worsening “a thousand times."

Terming it a “complete failure” on the part of successive governments, the bench said the impact of dog-bite incidents often lasts a lifetime. It warned that for every death caused by dog attacks, heavy compensation would be fixed on the government concerned, stressing that men, women and children who lost their lives could not be ignored.

In its last hearing on the matter, the petitioner’s counsel, citing a PIB report, said the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had promised to assess the number of dog-bite incidents, but the data had yet to be released. The report, he said, identified animal birth control (ABC) as the only practical and scientific method to curb dog overpopulation, but questioned why the policy had failed, attributing it to underfunding, inadequate capacity and corruption.

The bench responded that it was already aware of these issues and asked the counsel to present new facts. When the lawyer said no official census of stray dogs had been conducted, the court remarked that the matter had already been debated and asked him to point out anything new, failing which it would rely on the written submissions.

The counsel then submitted a set of suggestions, proposing the formation of a committee under the supervision of the Attorney General and the assessment of sterilisation capacity in each state. He also referred to scientific studies conducted in Jaipur and Jodhpur, claiming they had led to a 40 per cent

In its last hearing on January 13, the Supreme Court had said it would ask states to pay a "heavy compensation" for dog-bite incidents and hold dog feeders accountable as it flagged its concern over the lack of implementation of norms on stray animals for the past five years.

"For every dog bite, death or injury caused to children or 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. Also, responsibility and accountability will be fixed on those who are feeding these stray dogs. 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?" the three-judge bhenc said.

“Who should be held accountable when dogs attack a 9-year-old? The organisation that is feeding them? You want us to shut our eyes to the problem."