Supreme Court of India Weighs Public Safety and Animal Welfare in Stray Dog Management Case

The Supreme Court on Friday continued its extensive hearing in the stray dogs management case, weighing concerns of public safety against animal welfare and the need for humane population control measures.

The matter was thereafter adjourned to January 13, 2026.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria heard detailed submissions for the second consecutive day from animal rights activists, NGOs, victims of stray dog attacks, and other intervenors in the suo motu case titled In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”.

During the hearing, intervenors sought modifications of the Court’s earlier directions concerning the management of stray dogs in residential colonies and institutional premises.

Animal welfare groups emphasised strict implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, advocating sterilisation, vaccination, and release of dogs in the same territorial areas, along with scientific and humane population control models aimed at reducing dog-bite incidents over time.

On the other hand, representatives of victims’ groups pressed for removal of stray dogs from housing societies, citing rising instances of dog attacks and serious safety concerns, particularly for children and the elderly.

Appearing for an animal rights activist, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani drew the Court’s attention to alleged harassment and assaults on women dog feeders by vigilante groups, contending that authorities were failing to act on complaints or register FIRs.

Justice Vikram Nath advised that such grievances be pursued before local police or magistrates, reiterating the mandate of FIR registration in cognizable offences as laid down in Lalita Kumari, while clarifying that individual criminal cases could not be monitored by the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for animal rights activists Sonia Bose and Avnish Narayan, submitted that the issue was not “humans versus dogs” but a failure of governance. He argued that even a single death due to dog attacks implicates Article 21, but shifting blame onto animals for administrative lapses was impermissible.

He proposed a structured framework involving zoning of public spaces, designated feeding areas, time-bound implementation of ABC Rules, accountability of municipal officials, and coordination between State and local authorities.

Justice Sandeep Mehta appreciated the balanced approach suggested. Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan suggested the creation of a State-level online monitoring dashboard to track sterilisation, vaccination, and accountability of nodal officers to ensure transparency and compliance. Counsel appearing for other applicants, including actor Sharmila Tagore, opposed the idea of complete removal of stray dogs and advocated a scientific approach involving behavioural assessment, treatment of aggressive dogs, and micro chipping.

Justice Mehta, however, cautioned against unrealistic international comparisons, stressing the need to remain grounded in Indian realities. Justice Mehta remarked humorously on the natural rivalry between dogs and cats, drawing laughter in the courtroom, while reiterating that the issue required practical and humane solutions.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for All Creatures Great and Small, submitted that the case now raised questions of constitutional limits and institutional responsibility.

He argued that the existing legal framework formed a cohesive scheme, warranting judicial intervention only where a legislative vacuum existed, and called for the inclusion of scientific and domain experts in advisory roles.

Supporting this view, Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao urged empathetic and proportionate judicial intervention and suggested granting institutions a reasonable timeframe to demonstrate compliance with humane control measures.

Justice Mehta underscored that while compassion towards animals was essential, public safety remained paramount, noting that multiple incidents of attacks on vulnerable sections could not be ignored.

The Bench observed that the objective was not to pit competing narratives against each other, but to arrive at a workable, humane, and effective solution.

After hearing detailed submissions, the Court adjourned the matter to January 13, 2026, for further arguments from the remaining parties.