The Supreme Court on Thursday remarked that a dog can always smell people who are afraid of them and will attack when it sense that fear [In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh]. .A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria was hearing the suo motu case initiated by it in relation to the rising dog bite incidents in the country."The dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs. It will always attack when it senses that. We are talking from personal experience," the bench said.When a dog lover present inside the courtroom nodded her head in disagreement, the Court said,"Madam, don’t nod your head. If they know you are scared, there is a higher chance they will attack you. Even your pet will do it.".The stray dog matter gained national attention last year after a bench comprising 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 was later modified by the present three-judge bench. It mandated vaccination and release of sterilized dogs instead of permanent sheltering..In November 2025, the Court directed the State governments and National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to ensure removal of stray animals from the highways across India.The Court had also ordered that government and private educational, health institutions should be fenced within 8 weeks to tackle stray dog menace and prevent stray dog bites.Stray dogs picked up shall not be released back to the same location from where they were picked up since doing so will defeat the directions issued to regulate the issue in such institutional areas, the Court added then.On Wednesday, 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. The arguments in the case will continued for the third consecutive day on Friday..If they know you are scared, there is a higher chance they will attack you. Even your pet will do it.Supreme Court.Arguments Today.Senior Advocate CU Singh submitted today that when there is an abrupt removal of dogs, rodent populations shoot up and lead to unintended consequences. Singh also said that when dogs are put in shelters in a congested environment, it leads to the spread of other diseases."There has to be a balance. Your lordships know what happened in Surat 20-30 years ago," Singh said.In response, the Court made a light-hearted remark."On a lighter note, dogs and cats are enemies. Cats kill rodents so we should promote more cats and less dogs. That would be the solution. Tell us how many dogs you want roaming around in hospital corridors?," it said..Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal said that under ABC rules, only 66 animal birth control centres have been accredited. "In order to ensure population control we would need to multiply this by a huge number. There’s a critical lack of man power to even operate the existing centers," he added.Venugopal also said that States are authorising unqualified people to carry out the sterilisation..Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta asked where dogs will be housed in absence of the shelters."The rules contemplate that unless there is housing capacity, dogs cannot be captured. Because if the capacity is not there, where do you keep them? Unless we know the numbers, I don’t think the necessary data is there to know what’s the capacity available," he submitted..Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan contended that removal and sterilization and vaccination should be the last step. "The respective States have to identify. Identification, census of dogs, number of shelters etc have to be considered," he said.Sankaranarayanan called for recall of the earlier direction that mandates individuals and NGOs to deposit a certain amount for their participation in the case."My slight reservation is that each dog lover and individual shall deposit sums that have been mentioned. I feel a slight misgiving, people feel hesitant and feel that there is a commercial barrier to approach the Court. We can still see the court crowded. So it may be removed," he submitted.The Court remarked that the amount was still on the lighter side."If we had not put that then we would have to setup a pandal here. In fact we think the amount was on the lower side," it said..Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan submitted that dogs cannot be compared with other stray animals."There is a reason why a dog is said to be a man’s best friend. To equate them with buffaloes and roosters may not be appropriate. We need to find a humane solution to the problem," Dewan said.He also said that dogs should be microchipped for record of vaccinations, sterilization and other benefits. Dewan called for setting up an expert committee for examination of the issues involved."It is necessary to constitute an expert committee. This is not a problem that can be eliminated in a day. We need to decelerate the growth of community dogs," he said..Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for PETA, also called for constitution of an expert committee to examine the issues."Sometimes it may be worth having the advantage of some insights and guidance. The justification for the rule that mandates dogs to be released back to the same place from where they were picked up is backed by science. Territoriality, rodent population increasing etc," Divan said.Divan also said that when dogs are housed in kennels, it leads to cruelty as they are usually kept in a very congested cage. "Any animal confined in a small cage for a long time amounts to cruelty," he said.Senior Advocate Vinay Navare argued that the matter should be dealt with by the High Courts."Some plan must be made so that some implementation may be made through High Court machinery," he said..Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra asked that when rules exist, should the Court override them when there is no legislative vacuum."The issue is there were certain directions passed that go beyond ABC rules," Luthra said, while questioning the Court's power to issue the earlier directions..Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy representing an animal welfare organization highlighted the steps taken by IIT Delhi to deal with the issue of stray dogs."IIT Delhi had a problem with dogs. They were inside hostels and labs. We worked very closely with the staff and students, we implemented the ABC program on a war footing. The result was no case of rabies in the last 3 years, bite complaints eliminated without relocating dogs or creating permanent detention facilities," Nundy said.Nundy also contended that the ABC rules work well. "ABC rules are something that work and has been put together by experts. Given the success of the IIT model, perhaps in the same manner, if some institution are designated and see what the data is, what is the science behind the ABC rules and see if it works," she added.She further said that isolation vans were needed for transport of a rabid dog to the animal centre. "Making sure they are not housed near healthy animals. We also need dedicated incinerators for disposal of carcasses," she added..Senior Advocate Sumeet Pushkarna appeared for former Union Minister Vijay Goel. He backed the Court intervention and said that the order should be expanded from institutional areas to residential areas as well. "Obviously a dog can’t be counselled. But the dog owner can be counselled. We cannot lose sight of the fact that ABC rules have been made with an intent to progressively decrease the population, not to increase it," he said.He added that once a dog has bitten somebody, it shouldn’t be let out. "We have a Residents Welfare Association dog bite helpline where 20,000 complaints have been received," the Court was told.He also highlighted the difference between a pet and a stray. "While the stray may be capable of being domesticated but in a loose setup where he hasn’t been trained, I as a citizen, is in the nature of a mischief or a nuisance for a person who is not a dog lover," he said. The senior counsel further said that State has a limited responsibility when it comes to stray dogs and is not their owner. Instead, it was argued that the State has a duty to make safe the public way."The public way which leads to my house and residence has to be kept safe according to BNS. So ABC rules have to be read in a way that my right to access to my house from another statute is not watered down," it was argued..[Read Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
