The Supreme Court clarified that its remarks on holding dog feeders liable for stray dog attacks were made seriously and not sarcastically, rejecting claims of misinterpretation during hearings on stray dog management and public safety.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that its earlier oral observations in the stray dogs case — including remarks suggesting that dog feeders may be held liable for dog attacks — were made “very seriously” and were not sarcastic, even as concerns were raised about their real-world consequences.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria clarified after Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the Court’s earlier remarks had allegedly led to attacks and harassment of dog feeders on the ground.
ALSO READ: Committed Contempt of Court: Supreme Court Slams Maneka Gandhi Over Stray Dog Remarks
Bhushan argued that certain oral remarks of the Court, possibly intended humorously, were being misused by members of the public.
“Sometimes, the remarks of the Court lead to unfortunate consequences. For instance, Your Lordships said feeders should be made responsible for dog bites. Perhaps it was sarcastic,”
Bhushan submitted.
Justice Vikram Nath responded firmly:
“No, we didn’t make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously.”
Bhushan countered that dog feeders were being beaten and harassed, with perpetrators taking shelter behind those remarks.
The Bench, however, clarified that such observations were made during oral exchanges with counsel and do not change the legal position.
“These remarks are made during oral arguments in the course of interaction. That does not make any difference. Sorry,”
the Court said.
Opening his submissions, Bhushan highlighted systemic failures in implementing sterilisation programmes for stray dogs across Indian cities.
While acknowledging that sterilisation helps reduce aggression, he stressed that the system has failed due to lack of transparency and accountability.
“This system has not worked in most cities. To make it effective, it must be transparent and people must be made accountable,”
he argued.
Bhushan suggested:
- A public reporting mechanism for unsterilised dogs
- A dedicated website to log complaints
- Designated authorities with fixed responsibility
During the exchange, Justice Sandeep Mehta quipped:
“Why can’t we ask the dogs to carry the certificates themselves?”
Bhushan immediately warned that even light-hearted judicial remarks could have unintended consequences when proceedings are televised.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for animal rights activist and former Union Cabinet Minister Maneka Gandhi, underscored the responsibility attached to live-streamed hearings.
“These proceedings are being televised. There is therefore a duty on both the Bar and the Bench,”
he said.
The Bench replied:
“Yes, and precisely for that reason, we are restraining ourselves from making many more remarks.”
As Ramachandran commenced his submissions, the Court strongly criticised the public remarks made by his client.
Justice Vikram Nath observed:
“You were just urging restraint upon us. Have you seen the statements your client has been making? Your client’s conduct borders on contempt. We are not taking cognisance of it — that itself is restraint.”
The Court referred to Gandhi’s podcasts, body language, and sweeping public comments, stating that restraint was being exercised despite provocation.
Ramachandran responded that he was not appearing in a contempt matter and was representing a cause, adding that lawyers and judges operate on a different plane than politicians.
The Bench then posed a pointed question:
“Since your client is an animal rights activist and also served as a Cabinet Minister, what contribution did she make towards budgetary allocations for these schemes?”
Ramachandran replied:
“I am unable to answer that. The details are contained in the scheme itself.”
Several councils highlighted the night-time nuisance caused by stray dogs, particularly continuous barking, chasing, and aggression in residential areas.
One counsel narrated personal hardship, stating that persistent disturbances had affected sleep, children’s studies, and mental health, while complaints to authorities yielded no results.
Other submissions focused on:
- Rabies control failures
- Inadequate hospital preparedness
- Shortage of vaccines and wound-washing facilities
Advocate Aishwarya Singh cited data showing:
- Only 54% of centres had wound-washing facilities
- 84% reported vaccine stock-outs
She warned that India’s failure to implement Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PREP) constituted a serious public health lapse.
Advocate Jasdeep Dhillon, appearing for the family of a six-year-old child who died after a dog bite, highlighted alleged institutional negligence.
When other counsel attempted to cast doubt on rabies as the cause of death, the Bench intervened sharply:
“You are not in a position to comment on that writ petition. Don’t go there.”
The Court explicitly prohibited any submissions touching upon the cause of the child’s death.
The Court heard a wide range of solutions, including:
- Dedicated helpline mechanisms
- Regulation of feeding zones
- RWA-level monitoring committees
- Rehabilitation and treatment of aggressive dogs
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for dog psychologist Akash Shukla, emphasised coexistence, arguing that even when wildlife enters human habitats, legal protection continues.
Background
The case gained nationwide attention after a 2025 order directing municipal authorities to round up stray dogs, triggering protests by animal rights groups.
The present Bench later modified those directions, shifting focus to vaccination, sterilisation, and release under the Animal Birth Control Rules.
In November 2025, the Court directed:
- Removal of stray animals from highways and institutional areas
- Fencing of hospitals and schools
- Prohibition on releasing dogs back into institutional premises
Order:
All submissions concluded.
Matter listed on January 28 at 2 PM for hearing the arguments of the Learned Amicus Curiae, States, and Union Territories.
READ LIVE COVERAGE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs
