Supreme Court Warns of Accountability for Stray Dog Attacks, Says Civic Bodies and Feeders Will Be Held Responsible
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday delivered a sharp message on the growing menace of stray dog attacks, stating that municipal corporations and individuals who feed stray dogs will be held accountable for any harm caused.
The court observed that those concerned about the welfare of stray dogs should take them home and assume responsibility, rather than allowing them to roam freely in public spaces where they may attack, intimidate, or injure people.
A special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria made it clear that it would direct state governments and urban local bodies to pay substantial compensation to victims of stray dog attacks.
The bench noted that these authorities have failed for over five years to effectively implement laws and rules governing stray animals.
“Who Is Responsible When a Child Is Attacked?”
Raising pointed questions during the hearing, the bench asked who should be held accountable when a stray dog attacks a nine-year-old child.
The court suggested that responsibility could extend to organisations or individuals who feed and support stray dogs without ensuring their supervision or control.
The judges criticised what they described as attempts by some animal welfare groups and dog feeders to downplay the severity of the problem.
“You want us to shut our eyes to this issue,” the bench remarked, underlining the court’s concern for public safety, especially of children and the elderly.
Justice Mehta observed that a stray dog cannot be considered to be under anyone’s custody, and therefore, responsibility must be clearly fixed.
“If you want to keep a pet, take a licence and keep it at home,” he said, stressing the need for lawful ownership and accountability.
Background: Earlier Directions Ignored
The court recalled that it had previously directed municipal bodies across the country to remove stray dogs from public places such as bus terminals, railway stations, hospitals, and other sensitive areas.
It had also ordered that after dogs are picked up, they should not be released back into the same area after vaccination or sterilisation, a practice that has continued despite clear judicial instructions.
The bench indicated that the persistent non-compliance by civic authorities has worsened the situation, leaving citizens vulnerable to attacks.
Victim Shares Experience in Court
During the proceedings, Kamna Pandey, a victim of a dog bite, shared her personal experience with the court. She told the bench that she later adopted the very dog that had attacked her, after which the animal never bit anyone again.
She added that she later discovered the dog had been subjected to prolonged cruelty, suggesting that abuse may have contributed to its aggressive behaviour.
Argument: Not Humans vs Animals
Senior advocate Vikas Singh urged the court to view the issue not as a conflict between humans and animals, but from the broader perspective of ecological balance.
Referring to deaths caused by snake bites, he argued that stray dogs play a role in controlling rodent populations, thereby contributing to environmental stability.
Balancing Safety and Compassion
While acknowledging ecological and animal welfare concerns, the court made it clear that human safety cannot be compromised.
The bench signalled a stricter approach going forward, emphasising that law enforcement, civic accountability, and responsible animal care must go hand in hand.
The case has brought renewed national attention to the urgent need for effective stray animal management, balancing compassion for animals with the fundamental right of citizens to live without fear in public spaces.
