The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a clutch of petitions and interventions on the growing stray dog menace, with lawyers and activists presenting sharply diverging views on accountability for dog bites, efficacy of sterilisation drives, and enforcement gaps in India’s animal birth control regime.
A Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath said it would conclude arguments from private parties, NGOs and other stakeholders during the day, and fix a separate date to hear the States and government authorities, which are central to implementing policy and ground-level control measures.
The proceedings saw multiple counsels stress that the issue can no longer be treated as a mere civic inconvenience, with petitioners pointing to fatal incidents, systemic negligence in medical response, and a perceived lack of ownership among municipal bodies.
Kasab comment sparks sharp exchange
A major flashpoint came during the submissions of Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who told the court he was appearing for an animal rights activist and former Union minister (former BJP leader Maneka Gandhi). The bench immediately questioned him on his client’s own public statements, recalling that Ramachandran had earlier urged judicial restraint while making remarks in court.
“Have you seen the comments being made by your client?” the court asked.
Ramachandran responded that professional duty permitted him to represent any client, saying, “If I can appear for (26/11 convict) Ajmal Kasab, I can appear for her.”
The court strongly objected to the comparison and retorted, “Kasab did not commit contempt; your client has.” The Bench asked whether the counsel had listened to his client’s podcast, remarking that not only the content but also the manner of speech and body language were relevant in assessing the seriousness of the comments.
The Bench also pointed out what it described as an inconsistency, while the counsel had advised the court to be cautious in its remarks, his client’s public statements warranted equal scrutiny.
Court clarifies: ‘Not sarcastic’ on feeders’ responsibility
In another significant exchange, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan referred to an earlier observation by the court suggesting that dog feeders could be held responsible for dog bites, arguing that judicial remarks often have consequences on the ground. He suggested the observation might have been made sarcastically.
However, Justice Nath clarified firmly, “We did not say it sarcastically. We said it seriously.”
Bhushan also defended sterilisation as a long-term solution, saying that while some programmes had worked in pockets, including Lucknow, they had failed in most cities due to weak implementation. He said sterilisation not only helps reduce population over time but can also reduce aggression, and argued for greater transparency in the system.
He suggested a mechanism where citizens could report stray dogs that appear unsterilised, with complaints recorded on a public portal, and designated authorities accountable for response. In case of doubt, he suggested ultrasound examinations to verify sterilisation.
Petition highlights fatal rabies case, seeks accountability
Advocate Jasdeep Dhillon, appearing for the petitioner in a case involving a child’s death, told the court the petition filed under Article 32 concerned a six-year-old girl who was attacked by a dog on June 30, 2025, and later died of rabies on July 26.
Dhillon said it emerged that the same dog had earlier bitten four others in the society. He detailed how the child was first treated on the day of the bite but then moved between hospitals including Kalawati Hospital and Lady Hardinge before being shifted to RML and later Safdarjung Hospital, where her condition deteriorated.
The Bench asked whether a post-mortem was conducted, and Dhillon said the discharge certificate recorded rabies as the cause of death. He urged the court to fix liability on officials responsible for apparent negligence in treatment and referral.
Debate over ABC rules, corruption allegations and AWBI interference
During the hearing, counsels supporting the Animal Birth Control (ABC) regime argued that indiscriminate removal or killing of dogs was neither lawful nor effective. Advocate NM Kapadia submitted that in the absence of rabid dogs, other dogs could not be penalised, and cited examples where ABC programmes led to a reduction in dog population to around five per kilometre.
Another counsel referred to research by the student society of NLSIU, claiming dog numbers had dropped sharply in surveyed areas and dog-bite incidents had reduced, but raised concerns about the functioning of ABC centres, alleging inflated billing and corruption.
A separate counsel flagged what he described as undue interference by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) in municipal tenders and on-ground projects, arguing that while AWBI had a supervisory role, it was stalling work orders based on complaints by activists. He claimed only 66 centres in India were officially recognised and said he could demonstrate repeated interference affecting projects.
Petitioners cite nuisance, sleepless nights and lack of enforcement
Counsels and petitioners also highlighted the daily nuisance caused by stray dogs in residential localities. One petitioner told the court that persistent barking and chasing at night had caused him a sleep disorder and affected his children’s studies, but local authorities had not acted despite repeated complaints, saying they could only sterilise and vaccinate dogs.
He said complaints to the NHRC had also not yielded results, and argued that in cases of nuisance, dogs should be removed without being returned to the same location.
The petitioners also submitted that while ABC rules require dogs to be released only after sterilisation and vaccination, local laws including provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) empower authorities to remove animals causing nuisance, indicating a legal and administrative gap in enforcement.
A counsel told the Supreme Court that dog feeders understand canine behaviour and can identify sick animals. He argued that feeding curbs scavenging, reduces fights and does not spread disease, adding that the annual cost works out to around Rs 18,250 per dog. Questioning calls for dog removal, he suggested such resources could instead be used for addressing human hardship, including relocating orphans from pavements. He claimed feeders perform a public function and are protected under Rule 20 of the ABC Rules, reflecting legislative intent and constitutional rights. Citing examples like Tanzania, he urged compassion, saying empathy should not be punished.
The Supreme Court will next hear the stand of States and authorities on measures for addressing stray dog bites, vaccination, sterilisation and accountability frameworks on January 28.