'Complete failure': SC slams Centre, states on stray dog menace, warns of heavy compensation

The Supreme Court on Tuesday warned the Union and state governments that they could be made to pay heavy compensation for every victim of dog bites and fatalities if authorities continue to fail in implementing the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules.

Hearing a clutch of petitions on the issue, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria expressed visible frustration, describing the situation as one that has spiralled out of control due to decades of official apathy.

“This issue has been going on forever,” the bench said, pointing out that Parliament had been seized of the problem since the 1950s. “It is because of the Union government and the state governments that the problem has multiplied a thousand times. There is complete failure on the part of the authorities.”

In one of the sharpest warnings from the top court so far, the bench said it would not hesitate to impose compensation on governments for victims. “For every man, woman and child who has lost their lives to a dog bite, we will impose heavy compensation on the government responsible,” the judges cautioned.

But the court’s ire was not limited to governments alone. Turning its attention to dog feeders, the bench made it clear that compassion could not be divorced from responsibility. “And, also liability to dog feeders,” the court said bluntly. “You take them to your house, keep them. Why should they be allowed to roam around, biting and chasing people? The effect of a dog bite is lifelong.”

The hearing resumed this week after multiple rounds of detailed arguments last week. The court reiterated that it was not calling for the removal of all street dogs, clarifying that its concern was squarely about the implementation of existing statutory provisions, particularly the ABC rules.

“Our request to all the lawyers is to allow us to take the Union, the states and other authorities to task,” the bench said. “We want to see whether they even have a plan of action. We just want the implementation of statutory provisions. Allow us to work; allow us to proceed further.”

At one point, the judges lamented that the proceedings were beginning to resemble a public debate rather than a judicial exercise. “The same things are coming again and again. This has become a public platform rather than a court proceeding,” the bench observed.

The court also took a swipe at what it described as so-called dog lovers, referring to an incident in Gujarat where a lawyer was allegedly bitten by a stray dog inside the high court premises. When municipal workers attempted to capture the dogs, they were allegedly assaulted. “By lawyers. By these so-called dog lovers,” the bench remarked, underscoring what it saw as a pattern of obstruction faced by civic authorities on the ground.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for parties opposing the Supreme Court’s November 7, 2025 order, argued that the court’s directions should be uniformly applied to sensitive public spaces. He urged that airports, public parks and court complexes should not be treated as exceptions. “There is an impression that once a street dog is placed in such areas, it gets some kind of special protection. The court should clear this,” Datar submitted.

He also questioned the scope of the ABC rules themselves, arguing that they focus narrowly on birth control and do not address the risk of attacks. “Even if birth control is achieved, the danger of attack is not addressed. ABC rules will not apply to feral dogs,” he said, adding that street dogs do not acquire a permanent right merely by residing in gated societies.

“The fact that a street dog lives in a gated campus still continues to be a street dog,” Datar argued. “What is the right of a street dog to remain in a gated campus forever?”

On the other hand, lawyers representing animal shelters, welfare organisations and feeders highlighted the lack of resources, arguing that municipal bodies do not have adequate funds for permanent housing of street dogs. They stressed that indiscriminate removal would not solve the problem, warning that eliminating existing packs often leads to new, unsterilised dogs moving into the same territory.

One counsel called for a national policy to incentivise street dog adoption. That suggestion drew a sharp response from Justice Mehta, who asked pointedly why similar incentives could not be imagined for orphaned children living on the streets.

The exchange captured the core tension running through the case, how to balance compassion for animals with the right of citizens to safety and dignity in public spaces.

The matter will now be taken up again on January 20, when the court is expected to further press the Union and state governments on concrete plans to finally address a crisis it says has been allowed to fester for far too long.