The Supreme Court clarified that dog bite victims can intervene in the ongoing stray dogs case without paying any deposit, ensuring their concerns are heard freely. Justice Vikram Nath criticised States for showing “complete lethargy” in sterilisation and vaccination efforts.
The Supreme Court on Monday made an important clarification in the ongoing stray dogs case, saying that victims of dog bites will not have to pay any deposit for their intervention applications to be heard.
The case was heard by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria. Earlier, the Court had directed that individuals who wanted to intervene in the case must deposit Rs 25,000, while organisations were required to deposit Rs 2 lakh with the Supreme Court Registry.
However, the Bench clarified that this rule will not apply to victims of dog attacks. The Court said that all applications filed by such victims would now be heard without any payment.
The order came as the Bench continued to monitor the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 across India. Chief Secretaries of all States, except those from Delhi, Telangana, and West Bengal, appeared before the Court and presented compliance affidavits.
The Court recorded that all States and Union Territories have now submitted their affidavits, except for Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.
The Bench directed Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal to prepare a compilation and summary of all these affidavits for consideration on the next hearing date.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that many of the affidavits were incomplete.
He said that important details like the number of sterilisation centres, the number of dogs sterilised, and the funds allocated by each State were missing, making it difficult for the Court to review the actual implementation.
In response, Justice Vikram Nath said that the Court will go through all the affidavits carefully and will issue more directions as needed. He remarked that several States have shown “complete lethargy” in carrying out sterilisation and vaccination drives for stray dogs.
He added that future hearings would focus on both compliance and accountability.
Justice Nath further expressed concern over a new problem, calling it an “institutional menace”, where employees in government and public sector offices feed stray dogs within office areas and housing colonies. He noted that this practice often leads to conflicts and safety risks.
He said the Court will soon issue directions to ensure that feeding of stray dogs happens only in designated areas, so that “safety hazards” can be avoided.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Karuna Nandy requested that the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) be added as a party in the case. She said that the method being followed by local authorities to designate feeding areas was “unscientific and counterproductive.”
The Bench accepted her request and directed that notice be issued to the AWBI, formally impleading it in the matter.
The Court also clarified that while other intervenors must continue to pay the previously fixed deposit amounts, victims of dog bites need not make any payment for their applications.
It added that
“deposits already made by others would stand allowed”, and that “all interim applications by victims were permitted to proceed without cost.”
The matter will now be taken up again on November 7, when the Court will review the compiled data on sterilisation, vaccination, and infrastructure submitted by the amicus and other counsel.
The stray dogs issue gained national attention earlier this year after another Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had directed Delhi’s municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs. This order led to strong protests from animal rights groups.
Later, the order was modified by the current three-judge Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath, which ruled that stray dogs should instead be vaccinated, sterilised, and released back rather than being permanently kept in shelters.
At that time, the Court had also imposed deposit requirements on individuals and animal welfare groups who wished to intervene, to discourage what it described as “frivolous or agenda-driven” petitions.
However, the latest clarification marks a major exception — ensuring that victims of dog bites can approach the Court without facing any financial obstacles and that their voices are heard fairly in the ongoing debate on stray dog management.
Case Title:
In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Stray Dogs Case
