Today, On 9th January, The Supreme Court observed that many videos on YouTube show stray dogs attacking children and elderly. The Bench told Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, “We don’t want a competition here” regarding such incidents.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court noted that numerous videos on platforms like YouTube depict incidents of stray dogs attacking children and elderly individuals.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria made this remark in response to comments made by Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing a dog rights organization.
Rao, advocating for the Karan Puri foundation a registered society caring for street dogs in various locations in Delhi stated,
“If your lordships could see some videos that I have annexed.”
The Bench replied,
“There are ‘n’ number of videos on YouTube where dogs are attacking children and old people. We don’t want a competition here.”
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal mentioned,
“In relation to the question of Ladakh, my client was also part of the issue. I have handed over a note on this aspect.”
Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, representing pro-dog groups, emphasized the difficulties faced by women who feed stray dogs, stating,
“I want to highlight the plight of women feeders and caregivers. Under the garb of earlier orders, there are anti-feeder vigilantes. They are beating women, harassing women, the authorities are keeping silent on it.”
She recounted a specific incident in South India where vigilantes forcibly entered a woman’s home.
The Court interjected, saying,
“File an FIR then if they are molesting women.”
Pavani responded,
“FIRs are not being registered.”
The Bench retorted,
“Approach the High Court, don’t create noise about this here.”
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
Pavani further pointed out the derogatory remarks made against women, stating,
“There are derogatory remarks made against women. It goes to the extent of saying women are sleeping with dogs for their satisfaction!”
The Bench replied,
“You file a petition. If someone is saying this that’s wrong.”
Addressing the issue of stray dogs in Ladakh, Pavani noted,
“In the Ladakh article, the man himself says that the problem is man-made for food wastage, etc.”
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat asserted that the rise in stray dogs results from the State’s failure to uphold its responsibilities regarding public safety and animal welfare.
He stated,
“This is a matter where the State has failed on its statutory duty to balance public safety and animal welfare. The problem on the ground is dogs have become a menace at some level,”
Proposes several suggestions to address the issue:
- Zoning of public spaces is essential;
- Certain areas must be free of stray dogs, such as schools;
- Mandatory feeding protocols should be implemented, identifying feeders and their schedules, away from footpaths;
- A time-bound execution of Animal Birth Control Rules (ABC Rules) is necessary.
He argued for the strict enforcement of ABC rules by the State through municipal authorities, stating,
“The State wants to jettison ABC Rules. They can’t do that under the law… The real vet machinery is with the State. But the responsibility is of municipal authorities.”
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan offered additional solutions, suggesting the creation of an online dashboard at the state level for monitoring local authorities to improve transparency, accountability, and implementation.
She advocated for portable animal birth control units to facilitate the swift sterilization of animals.
Senior Advocate Pragyan Pradip Sharma, speaking for Sharmila Tagore, mentioned tactics such as color-coding collars to distinguish aggressive dogs from non-aggressive ones, asserting that “in our society we cannot have a one size fit all for removal of all dogs from the streets.”
He stressed the need for scientific and psychological approaches to address the issue of aggressive dogs.
The Bench, however, seemed unconvinced, responding,
“What is the population of those countries? Please be realistic, counsel.”
Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina from a dog welfare organization acknowledged the necessity to control the stray dog population while emphasizing that mere removal will not suffice.
He claimed that sterilization remains the effective solution, explaining,
“The minute you remove a dog, however hard you try, the population actually increases.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing an animal rights organization, argued that judicial intervention should be limited, stating,
“The statute and the rules heavily occupy the entire area… Your lordships’ intentions are to do something good. But Your lordships are bound by the intention of the legislature.”
The Court responded with sarcasm,
“You can bluntly say Your Lordships are helpless also.”
Singhvi cited the need for expert opinions, referring to a previous reconsideration of the apex court’s judgment in the Aravalli case, which was prompted by the lack of domain experts in a committee. He urged the Court to consider expert advice before making decisions regarding stray dogs.
In conclusion, Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao questioned whether the interim orders issued by the Court were proportionate to the needs of the situation, invoking the principle of institutional and constitutional empathy.
He remarked,
“Your lordships have vast powers but they are circumscribed by some limitations.”
The hearing is set to continue on January 13.
Earlier, during yesterday’s proceedings, the Court highlighted the rising incidence of dog bite cases across the country and criticized the municipal authorities and local bodies for not adequately enforcing the Animal Birth Control (ABC) regulations.
Previously, on August 22, 2025, a three-judge special bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, along with Justices Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, modified its earlier August 11 order that had prohibited the release of stray dogs from shelters.
The suo motu case was initiated on July 28, following media reports of rising stray dog attacks and rabies cases, particularly among children in Delhi.
An earlier order of August 11, passed by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had created huge controversy. That order had directed that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR must be caught and sent to shelters within eight weeks.
Case Title: In Re: City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs