Supreme Court questions attitude of those feeding stray dogs in public places

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply questioned the mindset of individuals and organisations that feed stray dogs in public spaces, asking whether their compassion extends only to animals and not to human lives. The bench raised concerns over accountability, posing a stark question: who should bear responsibility if a nine-year-old child is killed in a stray dog attack?

“Shouldn’t organisations that advocate feeding stray dogs in public places also be held accountable?” the court asked, underlining the growing tension between public safety and animal welfare.

During the hearing, senior advocate Arvind Datar argued that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules are largely focused on population control and that even their full implementation may not entirely eliminate the risk of dog attacks. He submitted that the existing framework fails to adequately address the issue of aggressive stray dogs.

The bench recalled its earlier hearing on 8 January, when it had flagged poor enforcement of the ABC Rules and cautioned dog lovers about their responsibilities. The court also clarified that its widely circulated remark about dogs sensing fear was not a directive to remove all street dogs. Instead, it reiterated that its emphasis has consistently been on humane treatment in accordance with the ABC Rules.

The court further noted the broader ecological and public health implications of unmanaged stray dog populations. It observed that stray dogs can carry specific viruses and that when such animals are attacked or consumed by wild predators like tigers, diseases such as canine distemper can spread, potentially leading to the death of infected wildlife.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh urged the court not to frame the issue as a dog-versus-human conflict, but rather as a larger animal-versus-human challenge. He pointed out that nearly 50,000 people die annually due to snake bites and that monkey attacks are also common. Singh added that stray dogs play a role in controlling rodent populations and that maintaining ecological balance must remain a consideration.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that killing stray dogs would not solve the problem, asserting that sterilisation is the only effective long-term solution. “If regulators had done their job properly, we would not be facing this situation today,” she said, calling for adequate funding for organisations working at the grassroots. She also alleged that several programme centres are failing to properly utilise allocated funds.

The court also heard from a woman who was herself a victim of a dog attack. She told the bench that effective implementation of the ABC programme could reduce both aggression and stray populations. Recounting her experience, she said she was bitten by a community dog without any apparent provocation and wanted to understand the cause behind such behaviour.

“The dog had been subjected to cruelty for a long time — it was kicked and stoned,” she said. “This was defensive aggression triggered by fear.” She added that cruelty towards otherwise friendly community dogs instils fear, which later manifests as aggression, and emphasised that she had suffered due to the actions of others.

The Supreme Court has been hearing the issue as a suo motu case since July last year, as it grapples with balancing public safety, animal welfare and effective policy implementation.

With IANS inputs