The Supreme Court questioned a plea on feeding stray dogs, asking, “Why don’t you feed them in your house?” The court stressed public safety while tagging the matter with a similar pending plea.

New Delhi: Today, on July 15, the Supreme Court of India, during a hearing on a plea related to the feeding of community dogs in Noida, posed a sharp question to the petitioner:
“Why don’t you feed them in your own house?”
The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition that alleged harassment faced by a person while trying to feed stray dogs, in accordance with Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
Read Also:Delhi HC Gives Direction To Government to Increase Compensation for Families of Manual Scavenging Victims
The judges expressed concern over public safety and the growing number of stray dogs in residential areas.
Addressing the petitioner’s counsel, the bench remarked,
“We should leave every lane, every road open for these large-hearted people? There is all space for these animals, no space for humans. Why don’t you feed them in your own house? Nobody is stopping you.”
This matter came before the Supreme Court following a March 2025 order passed by the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner argued that the authorities were harassing him for feeding community dogs, even though Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 clearly puts the responsibility on resident welfare associations (RWAs), apartment owner associations (AOAs), or the local body’s area representatives to make proper arrangements for feeding stray animals within their area.
Despite these provisions, the apex court bench strongly advised the petitioner to take personal responsibility if he was so inclined to care for the dogs, saying,
“We give you a suggestion to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house.”
The petitioner’s lawyer responded that he was following the law and that the municipality had created feeding zones in Greater Noida, but no such arrangements existed in Noida.
Read Also:Delhi HC Asks Police for Status Report on ‘2020 Delhi Riots’ Criminal Cases
He also suggested that feeding points should be set up in places that are not frequented by the general public to avoid any risk to people.
In a lighter yet cautionary tone, the bench asked,
“You go on cycling in the morning? Try doing it and see what happens.”
When the counsel said he usually goes for morning walks and notices several dogs, the judges responded seriously:
“Morning walkers are also at risk. Cycle riders and two-wheelers are at greater risk.”
In light of the issue’s significance, the bench decided to club this case with another pending petition that deals with a similar issue involving stray animals.
The petition originally filed in the Allahabad High Court had sought strict implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules in line with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The high court had observed that while the protection of stray dogs is necessary as per the law, the safety of ordinary citizens must also be considered.
“While protection of street dogs would be warranted in accordance with the provisions of the applicable statute, at the same time, the authorities will have to bear in mind the concern of common man, such that their movement on streets are not hampered by attacks by these street dogs,”
the high court had said.
It also directed the authorities to strike a balance, expecting them to act with caution and concern for both animals and humans. The court noted the rise in dog attacks in recent times and called for preventive measures to avoid future incidents.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Reverses Ban on ‘Ferocious Dog’ Breeds
The high court had made a clear recommendation: “Due sensitivity” should be shown towards the concerns of both the petitioner and common people.
It concluded the matter by saying that the authorities must ensure protection for strays but also guarantee that “interest of people on the streets was not jeopardised.”
Click Here to Read More Reports on Dogs