Today, On 13th January, The Supreme Court remarked in the Stray Dogs case: “No one is allowing us to pass the order; it has become a public platform rather than a court.” The bench also asked the feeders, “You take them home, so why let them roam, bite, or chase? Dog bites have lifelong effects.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard the matter linked to stray dogs, at a time when public safety and animal welfare concerns are increasing across different parts of the country.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the matter.
The Bench took up the issue as soon as it assembles, with many parties asking for urgent consideration.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar began his submissions by telling the court that earlier submissions were already made, and he listed the points again, stating that,
“The order passed Regards to institution area will be kept.”
He also argued that there is “no need for expert committee” and submitted that the “ABC rule ultra virus the PCA act.”
He described the issue as a serious matter and referred to the problem of “dangerous dog in wildlife area dog in current area like- Ladakh etc.”
He pointed out a major concern in Ladakh by saying,
“There are 55000 feral dogs in Ladakh and very few snow leopards are let.”
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
He stressed that they are mainly concerned about open spaces that the public can access. He raised a question before the Bench by saying,
“what is the meaning of street? what is the rights of streets for human?”
He also added that when cattle trespass there is liability, but when a dog trespasses there is no liability. He also told the court that his concern is with public institutions since people access these places for a particular purpose.
According to him, no street dog has the right to be relocated to such institutions “because he had no right to be there at first place.”
He further told the court that,
“There Is not definition for street dogs”
He explained that the terms street dogs, community-owned Indian dogs and abandoned dogs are not clearly defined, and now all three are being described as “homeless.”
He said that the definition of a street refers to an open space, but people have the right to access that open space. He added that land belonging to institutions or hospitals is not an open space, and the open space means land that nobody uses or land without ownership.
He argued that “the railway, hospital and institution are not open space.”
The Bench then raised a situation and asked,
“Suppose there is an RWA in a gates campus and 90% don’t desire dogs, but for the desire 5% people they should continue there.”
Arvind Datar responded by saying that all people take advantage of the gated campus, but it is still considered a place for street dogs.
The Bench also referred to an incident where,
“The lawyer attack when municipal authority come to capture in Gujarat ‘so called dog lover’.”
Arvind Datar pointed out that the ABC rule only deals with birth control and said “ABC rule is only for birth control. even if there is achieved the danger of attack of dogs it is not addressed by ABC Rules.”
He added that,
“ABC will not apply to feral dogs.”
At this point, the Bench mentioned that,
“These dogs, they carry a certain virus, if you look Ladakh issue look the Florida case.”
Senior advocate Vikas Singh then addressed the court and said that his point was “not dog v Human my point is rather Animal v. Human issue. The ecosystem require other things then bite. dogs are important for rodent control too.”
He then ended his submission by saying “ended submission.”
Senior advocate Pinky Anand followed and submitted that,
“I can’t close my eyes to the violence.”
She highlighted that Indian philosophy and national documents emphasise peaceful coexistence and said,
“The country philosophy the NEP,UGC say that humans should peacefully exist animals, animals should be treated with mercy.”
She then began presenting her recommendations, but the Bench reminded her, “Mention new don’t repeat.”
Her recommendations included that “removal of dogs from institutional premise’s is not scientific” and she noted that “the rules point out the obligation of local authorities. can collaborate with municipal authority.”
She added that even though violence happens, the law clearly says that animals must be treated with compassion, stating,
“There are been violence but provision provide that animals must be treated with compassion.”
Justice Mehta then asked a direct question,
“Who should be held accountable when dogs attack a 9years old? you want us to shut our eyes to the problem.”
Pinky Anand replied that “These incident will happen, the way to control is not to take any one two or ten incidents.” When her submissions ended, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy addressed the court.
She said that,
“These are deeply contentious and emotional issues pertaining to stray dogs and the conflict.”
The Bench responded by remarking, “emotion seem to be only for Dogs.”
Menaka Guruswamy clarified that she cared about humans too and said,
“Not, i am emotionally attached to human being i am emotional person.”
She defended the ABC Rules by saying, “The ABC rule are a result of parliament applying its mind.”
The Bench remarked ,
“No one is allowing to pass the order every one is repeating the same concern. so my request to all the counsel let us pass the order its being 4th day. we just want to implement the statue. allow us to proceed further. it’s became a public platform rather than court. Also liability arises for those who feed them take them to your home. And also liability to dog feeders. You take them to your house, keep them, why should they be allowed to roam around, biting, chasing? The effect of a dog bite is lifelong.”“
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” Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SMW(C) No. 5/2025, PIL-W
Read Live Coverage
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs