The Supreme Court on Friday continued its hearing on the regulation and management of stray dogs, taking views from animal welfare organisations, civil society groups and representatives of residents affected by incidents of dog attacks.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria has been hearing the matter for the past two days, examining competing concerns surrounding the presence of stray dogs in residential colonies, institutional campuses and public spaces. Several intervenors sought reconsideration and modification of the Court’s earlier directions, urging strict adherence to the statutory framework under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. They advocated a scientific, data-driven and humane population control regime, contending that sterilisation, vaccination and territorial release of dogs in their original habitats remained the only legally permissible and globally recognised method capable of reducing dog-bite incidents over time.
Associations representing victims of dog attacks pressed for the removal of stray dogs from housing societies and densely populated residential areas, citing heightened safety risks, particularly to children, senior citizens and persons with disabilities. These groups argued that unchecked canine populations and inconsistent municipal enforcement had resulted in a direct infringement of the right to life and personal security under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Appearing for an animal rights activist, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted instances of alleged harassment and intimidation faced by women involved in feeding community dogs. She submitted that vigilante actions by private individuals and housing associations had gone unchecked, with local authorities allegedly failing to discharge their statutory duties by refusing to register complaints or initiate criminal proceedings. The Bench, however, reiterated the settled legal position under the Constitution Bench ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), which mandates registration of FIRs in cases disclosing cognisable offences, while clarifying that individual allegations of criminal conduct fell within the domain of law enforcement and could not be adjudicated within the present proceedings.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing animal welfare activists Sonia Bose and Avnish Narayan, framed the controversy as an issue of systemic administrative failure rather than a binary conflict between human safety and animal welfare. He argued that sporadic incidents of dog attacks, though serious, could not justify departures from statutory mandates or collective punishment of animals. Emphasising the State’s positive obligations under Article 21, he submitted that effective enforcement of municipal laws, the ABC Rules and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act would adequately address both public safety and animal welfare concerns.
Farasat placed before the Court a structured framework proposing zoning of public spaces, identification of designated feeding areas, time-bound implementation of sterilisation and vaccination programmes, fixing accountability of municipal and nodal officers, and coordinated action between State governments and urban local bodies. The Bench acknowledged the attempt to reconcile competing constitutional values and noted the importance of proportionality in regulatory responses.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan supplemented these submissions by proposing the creation of a State-level digital monitoring mechanism to track sterilisation drives, vaccination coverage and compliance by municipal authorities. She underscored the need for transparency, real-time data collection and clearly demarcated institutional responsibility to prevent dilution of statutory obligations.
Counsels appearing for other applicants, including actor and animal welfare advocate Sharmila Tagore, opposed calls for the wholesale removal of stray dogs from urban environments. They urged adoption of a scientific and behavioural assessment-based approach, including microchipping, tagging and identification of aggressive animals, coupled with targeted intervention rather than indiscriminate displacement. The Bench, while noting these submissions, cautioned against uncritical reliance on international models without accounting for India’s demographic scale, urban density and infrastructural constraints.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the organisation All Creatures Great and Small, submitted that the matter had evolved into one implicating constitutional boundaries and institutional competence. He argued that the existing statutory framework constituted an integrated regulatory scheme, leaving limited scope for judicial intervention absent a legislative vacuum or demonstrable executive abdication. Singhvi further advocated the inclusion of domain experts in veterinary science, epidemiology and urban planning to assist the Court, contending that such complex socio-legal issues required multidisciplinary expertise beyond conventional legal analysis.
These submissions were supported by Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, who called for calibrated and empathetic judicial oversight. He urged that institutions and municipal bodies be afforded a reasonable time frame to demonstrate compliance with humane population control measures before coercive directions were considered.
Throughout the hearing, the Bench repeatedly underscored that while compassion towards animals remained a constitutional and statutory imperative, public safety could not be compromised. The judges noted material placed on record indicating recurring incidents of dog attacks, particularly affecting vulnerable sections of society, and stressed the necessity of a pragmatic and enforceable solution that harmonised animal welfare norms with human safety concerns.
The Apex Court listed the matter for further hearing on January 13, 2026, noting that a comprehensive and balanced adjudication would require continued engagement with all stakeholders.
The post Stray dog crisis: Supreme Court explores administrative, legal solutions appeared first on India Legal.