The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it may soon fix liability on state authorities and dog feeders for injuries and deaths caused by stray dog attacks.
The observations were made by the Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria, while hearing suo motu proceedings over the escalating public safety concerns arising from free-ranging dogs across urban and institutional spaces.
The Apex Court expressed prima facie dissatisfaction with the persistent failure of civic bodies to discharge their statutory obligations under municipal laws, public health statutes and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (as amended).
It underscored that prolonged administrative inaction could invite constitutional scrutiny, particularly under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal safety.
The Bench conveyed that serious consideration was being given to the imposition of exemplary compensation for incidents involving dog bites, grievous injuries or fatalities, especially where vulnerable groups such as children and senior citizens are affected. Such compensation could be recoverable from the State for failure of governance, while accountability may also be affixed on private feeders who, without lawful authority or assumption of responsibility, enable dogs to congregate in public areas, it added.
The Bench emphasised that concern for animal welfare cannot translate into the creation of unregulated risks for the general public, and suggested that those wishing to care for dogs must do so within legally permissible private spaces, subject to licensing norms.
The proceedings arise from the Court’s earlier order passed in November 2025, by which local authorities were directed to remove stray dogs from sensitive institutional premises including hospitals, schools, bus terminals, railway stations and court complexes.
The order mandated vaccination and sterilisation strictly in accordance with the ABC Rules, while expressly prohibiting the re-release of dogs into the same institutional locations from which they were removed. Several animal welfare organisations subsequently sought modification of this direction, arguing that the embargo on re-release was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and principles of humane treatment.
During the resumed hearing, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for a conservation-oriented intervenor, defended the November order as being squarely rooted in statutory authority and constitutional balance. He submitted that the ABC Rules do not confer any legal right upon stray or free-ranging dogs to occupy public or institutional premises, particularly those meant for regulated human access.
Drawing upon municipal law principles and High Court precedents, including judgments of the Madras High Court affirming the public’s right to unobstructed passage on streets, it was argued that permitting dogs to remain in such spaces amounted to a form of animal trespass impermissible in law.
The Court appeared receptive to the submission that animal welfare regulations cannot override public safety imperatives, especially where the State’s parens patriae obligation towards citizens is implicated. The Bench also took note of submissions highlighting that even judicial premises have not remained immune from dog attacks, reflecting the systemic nature of the problem.
Expanding the scope of concern beyond urban centres, Datar drew attention to a separate writ petition dealing with feral dog populations in ecologically sensitive zones, particularly in Ladakh.
According to reports placed on record, the presence of tens of thousands of free-ranging dogs was said to pose a serious threat to critically endangered wildlife, thereby raising issues under environmental protection laws and biodiversity conservation frameworks. It was contended that scientifically informed population control measures could significantly reduce both dog numbers and bite incidents within a short timeframe.
On the other hand, senior counsel representing animal welfare organisations urged the Court to adopt a holistic and ecologically informed approach.
It was argued that indiscriminate removal or displacement of dogs could destabilise local ecosystems and lead to unintended consequences, including increased aggression and territorial conflicts. Reference was made to the statutory mandate under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which requires that animals be treated with compassion, and to the legislative rejection of culling as a population control strategy.
Concerns were also raised regarding inadequate infrastructure, particularly the limited number of functional ABC centres, absence of trained personnel, and chronic underfunding of sterilisation programmes. It was contended that these structural deficiencies, rather than the presence of dogs per se, constituted the root cause of the crisis.
The Bench, however, expressed growing impatience with repetitive submissions and the lack of empirically grounded data. It questioned how population figures and projections could be advanced in the absence of any comprehensive census of stray dogs, characterising several claims as speculative and legally unsustainable.
Proposals for constituting additional expert committees were met with scepticism, with the Court noting that multiple committee reports were already on record and that the real deficit lay in implementation rather than policy formulation.
The Bench also heard from a dog-bite survivor, whose submissions introduced a victim-centric perspective into the proceedings. While acknowledging the role of fear-induced aggression and human cruelty in shaping canine behaviour, the Bench remained focused on the institutional responsibility of the State to ensure that public spaces remain safe and accessible.
Throughout the hearing, the judges emphasised that the proceedings could not be allowed to devolve into an emotional or ideological debate. The Court reiterated its intent to hold authorities to account and to activate enforcement mechanisms that have remained dormant for years, observing that the scale of the problem had expanded manifold due to sustained administrative neglect.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on January 20 at 2:00 pm, when the Court is expected to continue examining compliance with its earlier directions and the feasibility of enforcing a legally sustainable framework that reconciles animal welfare with public safety and constitutional governance.
The post Supreme Court considers fixing responsibility for stray dog attack casualties appeared first on India Legal.