The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed that it was serious about comments it made during hearings in the stray dogs case, including an earlier comment that dog feeders may be held liable for dog attacks.
This, after Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria that its earlier comments, which were perhaps made sarcastically, had led to unfortunate consequences, including attacks on dog feeders.
"Sometimes, the remarks of the Court lead to unfortunate consequences. For example, your lordships said feeders should be made responsible for dog bites. Perhaps it was sarcastic," Bhushan said.
"No, we didn’t make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously," Justice Nath replied.
"Feeders are being beaten up etc, and they are taking refuge under these remarks," Bhushan said, in turn.
"These (remarks) are made during oral arguments during the conversation with counsel. Doesn’t make any difference. Sorry," the Court said.
Bhushan had opened his argument today by expressing concern that the sterilisation of stray dogs is not being implemented uniformly in India. He submitted that while sterilisation reduces aggressiveness seen in stray dogs, it has to be implemented in a transparent manner.
"...this system of sterilisation has not worked in most of the cities...The way to make it effective is to make it transparent and make people accountable. There should be a system where people can report stray dogs who seem to be non-sterilised. That should be recorded or reported on some website. There should be designated authorities whose responsibility will be to respond to the complaint on unsterilised stray dogs," he suggested.
"Why can’t we ask the dogs to carry the certificates themselves?" Justice Mehta retorted.
This prompted Bhushan to observe that such remarks by the Court may have unfortunate consequences.
However, the Court then indicated that its remarks in earlier hearings were made with seriousness and need not be viewed as sarcastic.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran weighed in, saying,
"These things are being televised. Therefore, there is a duty of both the Bar and Bench."
"Yes, because of this only, we are restraining ourselves from making many more remarks," the Bench replied.
Ramachandran appeared for former Union Cabinet Minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi. As he began his submissions, the Court expressed a dim view of certain comments made by the senior counsel's client.
"A little while ago, you were telling the Court we should be circumspect. Did you find out what kind of remarks your client has been making? Your client has committed contempt. We are not taking cognisance on that. That is our magnanimity. Have you heard her podcast? What is her body language? What she says and how she says. You made a comment that court should be circumspect. On the other hand, your client is making all sorts of comments on anybody and anything she likes!" the Court said.
"This is not a contempt action, so I will refrain from saying anything on that," Ramachandran replied. He added,
"I am representing a cause. Lawyers and judges would be on a different plane than politicians. Be that as it may."
He went on to underscore the significance of rabies control programmes and birth control measures in managing stray dogs in India.
"Since your client in an animal rights activist, she was a cabinet minister etc., what are the contributions of your client to the budgetary allocations for implementing these schemes?" the Court asked.
"I can’t answer that. It’s all there in the scheme," Ramachandran replied.
The Court will hear the case next on January 28, 2026, when it is expected to begin hearing submissions made by the amicus curiae, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and states and union territories.
Other highlights from today's hearing
The hearing began with counsel making further arguments on how other countries have dealt with similar issues of stray dogs, including by using the Capture, Sterilize, Vaccinate, Release (CSVR) approach.
"Netherlands has one of the most successful instances. Imposition of heavy taxes etc on store purchases to reduce abandonment, mandatory micro-chipping, etc. I want to mention the program in Bhutan," a counsel said.
The Court, however, expressed reservations about whether the situation in other countries is comparable to India.
"What is the population of that country? Do you know?" Justice Mehta asked.
Concerns were then raised about the nuisance caused by stray dogs at night.
"In the vicinity where I am living, there are so many stray dogs. The entire night, they keep chasing each other. I have a sleep disorder. My kids cannot study. I complained to the authorities. They said they can just do vaccination and sterilisation. I also wrote to NHRC - nothing happened. ABC Rules work in a particular framework. Only if the dogs are taken for sterilisation or vaccination, then only the dogs will be released back. But BNS says if there is nuisance, the local authorities can remove the dogs," a counsel said.
Another counsel advocated for the establishment of a helpline, adding that High Courts would be better placed to oversee the implementation of such stray dog control measures. There should be no killing of the dogs, he urged.
Advocate Rahul Kaushik, for another party, suggested that better regulation of feeding spaces and vaccinations for stray dogs at local levels could help in managing them.
Advocate NM Kapadia suggested that aggressive dogs can be treated differently. He also warned that the blanket removal of all stray dogs could lead to unintended negative consequences.
"As a result of mass removal of dogs in Gujarat in 1994, the rodent population increased..."
Another counsel highlighted the results of CSVR programmes at the National Law School University of India, Bengaluru (NLSIU).
"Dog numbers are down from 40 to 20. The dog bites last year was zero," he said.
A counsel for a dog bite victim, meanwhile, expressed concern that the pending Supreme Court case was being cited to evade responsibility by some.
"Because of pending of suo motu no one is taking responsibility for dog bites. There is no protection for dogs in Wildlife Protection Act," he said.
Concerns were also raised about "interference" by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) with sterilisation centres.
"Only 66 centres in India are recognised. I can satisfy as to how there has been constant interference by the AWBI," the counsel argued.
Advocate Jasdeep Dhillon appeared for the family of a six-year-old child who passed away after being bitten by a stray dog.
Another counsel interjected to say that the child had been drinking water till the day she died, possibly hinting that she did not exhibit hydrophobia (fear of water), which is a rabies symptom.
The Court was not pleased with the suggestion.
"You mean to say she died naturally? That’s your argument?" it asked.
"The death certificate is not conclusive," the counsel replied.
"You are no one to comment on the writ petition that was argued," the Court said, in turn.
"For confirmation of rabies, the brain tissue analysis has to be done," Advocate Jasmin Damkewala added.
"Do not comment on that. Stick to your IA," the Court warned.
Advocate Damkewala went on to argue that there were scientific studies to show that feeding stray dogs could help control their behaviour.
"If you stop feeding, there’s a 742% increase in dogs roaming, leading to dog fights, aggression, etc. Feeding reduces scavenging st garbage. Competition is reduced. Stress is reduced. Spreading of infection can be stopped. It allows early detection. It increases predictability of dog behaviour...Feeders carry out a public function. There’s corruption, there’s laziness (by authorities). Feeders are sterilising from their own pockets," she added.
Advocate Kishore Shinde suggested that medical negligence and tortious liability can be fastened on local authorities if there are stray dog bite incidents.
"Had rabies been treated in the right time and in the right manner, it could have been cured," he added.
Advocate Aishwarya Singh called for better rabies control measures.
"Only 54% centres had wound washing facilities. 84% had vaccine stock out. There are two kinds of vaccinations. PEP (after a bite) and PREP (before a bite). PREP places a shield before the victim. PREP has been recommended in India’s context by the WHO. Failure to implement PREP is a grave omission as a public healthcare measure."
She also briefly touched upon the circumstances which led to the suo motu case before the top court.
"The tragic death of the child, which triggered this case, is undeniably heartbreaking. However what has been lost in media coverage is that the cause of death is viral encephalitis," she began to argue.
However, the Court warned her not to bring up the child's death.
"We prohibit you from doing that. Not a single word on that death. Not a word," it said.
"That child was victim of institutional failure of the state," Singh persisted.
"Again, you are going there where we have prohibited," the Court replied.
Another counsel expressed that their client was being obstructed from feeding stray dogs, adding,
"Dogs were always there. Dog numbers were reducing because of efforts of residents. Monitoring the dog is not difficulty. But when there was objection for feeding, we filed a WP. It was disposed of asking to go to the committee. Whenever municipality came for marking the places, it became a law and order issue."
Advocate Kirti Ahuja raised concerns about how a dog is judged to be "aggressive" to bar such dogs from being released back to the streets.
"The definition of 'aggressiveness' is not defined in the judgment. It depends on the whims of the ground level staff. Who will define if they became aggressive because of provocation? Definition of aggressiveness may be clarified by this Court," she said.
Advocate Manoj Shirsat sought compensation for a five-year-old child who was bitten by a stray dog.
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared for Akash Shukla, a dog psychologist.
"He’s the Cesar Millan (a Mexican-American dog trainer) of India?" asked the Court.
"Yes. He may be called that. In man-animal conflict, if the state enters into the area of the wildlife, wildlife is protected. If wildlife enters into human habitat, still wildlife is protected," Dave replied.
Dave also raised concerns about the manner in which the Supreme Court's hearing in this case were being publicised by some.
Another counsel added,
"Prevention is better than cure. We cannot educate animals but we can educate humans. We can put some education policy in schools to learn animal behaviour etc."
The matter gained national attention last year after a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs, drawing protests from animal rights groups.
That order triggered widespread protests by animal rights groups and was later modified by the present three-judge Bench.
The modified directions shifted the focus to vaccination, sterilisation and release of dogs in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules. Since then, the Court has expanded the scope of the case.
On November 7, 2025, as an interim measure, the Court directed states and the NHAI to remove stray animals from highways and institutional areas like hospitals, schools and educational institutions across the country.
It also ordered fencing of government and private educational and health institutions within eight weeks to prevent stray dog bites, and directed that dogs picked up from such institutional areas should not be released back into the same premises.
During the hearing on December 7, the Court flagged the increasing number of dog bite incidents in the country and called out the municipal authorities and other local bodies for their failure to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules.
[Live Coverage]