Supreme Court allows bite victims to intervene in stray dogs case without paying deposit

The Supreme Court on Monday exempted dog bite victims from depositing any money for their intervention applications to be heard in the ongoing stray dogs case by the Court [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 had earlier directed that individuals and organisations seeking to intervene must deposit ₹25,000 and ₹2 lakh respectively with the registry but today clarified that this rule would not apply to victims of dog attacks.

The bench today passed the exemption order while continuing its monitoring of the implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 across the country. All Chief Secretaries except those from Delhi, Telangana and West Bengal appeared before the Court and presented compliance affidavits on behalf of their States.

The Court recorded that all States and Union Territories have now filed compliance affidavits, except the Union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. It directed amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal to prepare a compilation and summary of the affidavits for consideration on the next date.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that most of the compliance affidavits were incomplete. He said crucial details such as the number of sterilisation centres, the number of dogs sterilised and the funds allocated by each State were missing, making meaningful oversight difficult.

Justice Nath said the Court would carefully review all affidavits and issue further directions.

He remarked that several States have shown “complete lethargy” in implementing sterilisation and vaccination drives, adding that future hearings would focus on both compliance and accountability.

Justice Nath further observed that government and public sector establishments were witnessing a growing “institutional menace” of employees feeding stray dogs within office compounds and residential colonies, leading to frequent conflicts.

He said the Court would pass directions to regulate such practices and ensure that feeding is done only at designated areas to avoid safety hazards.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Karuna Nandy sought impleadment of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) as a party, pointing out flaws in how the directions were being implemented on the ground.

She said the method of designating feeding areas was often unscientific and counterproductive.

The bench agreed to implead AWBI in the case and directed that notice be issued to it.

The Court also clarified that while all other intervenors must deposit the previously fixed amounts, victims of dog bites need not make any payment for their applications to be heard.

The order said that deposits already made by others would stand allowed and that all interim applications by victims were permitted to proceed without cost.

The Court will now pass further orders on November 7 after examining the compiled data on sterilisation, vaccination and infrastructure prepared by the amicus and counsel.

The stray dogs case gained national attention earlier this 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 led by Justice Vikram Nath, which mandated vaccination and release of sterilised dogs instead of permanent sheltering.

In that order, the Court also imposed deposits on animal welfare organisations and individual intervenors to discourage what it called “frivolous or agenda-driven” petitions. Today’s clarification, however, marks a significant exception for victims, ensuring that their voices are heard without financial barriers.

[Read Live Coverage]