The Supreme Court on Friday said that there are scores of videos on online platforms like YouTube which show stray dogs attacking children and old people..A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria made the observation in response to a statement by Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao appearing for a dog rights organisation."If your lordships could see some videos that I have annexed," Rao said on behalf of Karan Puri foundation, a registered society taking care of street dogs at their own expense in various parts of Delhi."There are 'n' number of videos on YouTube where dogs are attacking children and old people. We don’t want a competition here," the Bench responded..The stray dog 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 was later modified by the present three-judge Bench. It mandated vaccination and release of sterilised dogs instead of permanent sheltering.In November 2025, the Court directed the State governments and the 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 and health institutions should be fenced within 8 weeks to tackle the 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..During the hearing yesterday, the Court asked the counsel to come prepared about a newspaper article that appeared in Times of India on December 29 titled 'On the roof of the world, feral dogs hunt down Ladakh’s rare species'.The article detailed how feral dogs have emerged as a by-product of increased tourism, military deployment and unmanaged waste in the cold desert. These dogs have now started preying on endangered wildlife in Ladakh and have started attacking people, the article said..Arguments today.When the case was taken up for hearing today, Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal said, "In relation to the question of Ladakh, my client was also part of the issue. I have handed over a note on this aspect."Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, appearing for pro-dog parties, said that women who feed stray dogs were being harassed by people."I want to highlight the plight of women feeders and caregivers. Under the garb of earlier orders, there are anti-feeder vigilantes. They are beating women, harassing women, the authorities are keeping silent on it," she said.Pavani highlighted a particular incident in South India where vigilantes violently entered a woman feeder’s house. "File an FIR then if they are molesting women," the Court said."FIRs are not being registered," Pavani replied."Approach the High Court, don’t create noise about this here," the Bench shot back. "There are derogatory remarks made against women. it goes to the extent of saying women are sleeping with dogs for their satisfaction!" Pavani contended."You file a petition. If someone is saying this that’s wrong," the Bench said.On the issue regarding feral dogs in Ladakh, Pavani said,"In the Ladakh article, the man himself says that the problem is man-made for food wastage etc.".Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat said that stray dogs have become an issue because of the failure of the State."This is a matter where the State has failed on its statutory duty to balance public safety and animal welfare. The problem on the ground is dogs have become a menace at some level," Farasat said.He then proceeded to read out some suggestions to tackle the problem.- There has to be zoning of public spaces; - There are some spaces which have to be stray dogs free, like schools etc. it’s necessary;- Direct mandatory feeding protocols, identify feeders, timings, etc, away from footpaths;- Time-bound implementation of Animal Birth Control Rules (ABC Rules).He also batted for strict implementation of ABC rules by the State with the help of municipal authorities."State wants to jettison ABC Rules. They can’t do that under the law. They gave a responsibility to implement ABC. There is a resource crunch. So direct States to identity the resource crunch. They can do it. Lordships don’t need to monitor it. There are large number of hospitals most of them owned by state governments. State governments and municipal corporations have to work together.The real vet machinery is with the State. But the responsibility is of municipal authorities. So they have to work together," he submitted..Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan also proceeded to offer suggestions to deal with the stray dog problem."I am going to suggest some solutions. We were suggesting an online dashboard at the state level which will monitor local authorities and to automate transparency, accountability and implementation. We can have portable animal birth control units. Instead of taking animals to ABC centres, they are put under general anaesthesia. They are kept there till they recover and then they are released back. We are short of physical stationary ABC Centres. The speed of sterilisation is being impeded. Having these portable units is thus a very good idea," Divan suggested..Senior Advocate Pragyan Pradip Sharma, appearing for Sharmila Tagore, batted for methods like colour coding collars to identify aggressive dogs from non-aggressive ones."In our society we cannot have a one size fit all for removal of all dogs from the streets. The answer lies in science and psychology. The ABC Rules may not be foolproof. Therefore it needs to be given a look. Legislature contemplated concept of street dogs and aggressive dogs. The release of a dog is recognised and adopted. It has been seen that once an aggressive dog comes and is treated and is given psychological treatment and are sent back to society. There are cases where the aggression is repeated. But the dog has to be identified as an aggressive dog by the committee. colour coding collars can be done to identify dogs as who has bitten before etc. this has been done in countries like Georgia, Armenia etc," Sharma contended.However, the Bench was not impressed."What is the population of those countries? Please be realistic counsel," the Court said..Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina appearing a dog welfare organisation, said that the population of stray dogs has to be contained. However, he said that merely removing stray dogs from streets will not help achieve that and sterilisation is the solution."As an organisation which works for welfare for stray dogs, we accept the position that stray dogs population should be minimised. The problem is legal and scientific. The legal is how to best enforce the ABC Rules. Scientific is how to achieve control over dog population. The minute you remove a dog, however hard you try, the population actually increases. We have actually experienced good results in Bombay when it comes to capture-sterilise-vaccinate-release (CSVR). Nobody can accept a situation where dogs behave aggressively. Sterilisation program goes hand in hand with the control of aggressive behaviour. Feeding stations are to be set up in consultation with all stakeholders in the community. My summary position is that please don’t stop what we have started. The rules should be made more effective," he said..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for an animal rights body, said that the scope of judicial intervention in the case is limited since the law and rules are near exhaustive."I appear for a body called ACGS (All Creatures Great and Small). This is now not entirely a matter about dog and humans. It’s about certain constitutional principles. The first point is that according to us, the statute and the rules heavily occupy the entire area. The rules form a seamless web. Judicial intervention operates in interstices of gaps. Not where the legislature has intentionally not gone into. Your lordships intentions are to do something good. But Your lordships are bound by the intention of the legislature," he said."You can bluntly say Your Lordships are helpless also," the Bench said, not hiding its sarcasm.Singhvi then did not mince his words and even referred to how the apex court was forced to reconsider its judgment in the Aravalli case since the initial order was passed without taking into account opinion of domain experts.He batted for taking into account expert opinion before passing orders in the stray dogs matter too."Certainly. Your Lordships have all kind of restraints. The obligation of the Court to enforce rights is in the “absence of legislation”. Your Lordships will be building a new edifice if they enter into that territory. While our amicus is great, the concept of amici are basically law advisors. They are not domain experts. Your lordships must have domain experts along with the amicus. In the recent Aravalli judgement, the reconsideration was because that committee had 90% bureaucrats - generalists, not domain experts. Reconsideration was done because the domain experts had to come in. It will improve the quality of your lordships orders. Aravalli is the most recent striking example. Willy nilly, your lordships have passed an order. And it is more final than final can be. The trappings of finality are if substantial issues are decided are not - absolutely yes. The 7th November order. The expense also is a finality. One cannot have initiation of expense and then reverse it. Obviously there won’t be any demolitions. Even if your lordships agrees with me the order by its very nature is irreversible," he contended..Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao also batted for the rights of stray dogs and asked whether the interim orders passed by the Court earlier were proportionate to what was required."Your lordships have passed an interim order. Your lordships never intended it to have trappings of finality. The principle of institutional and constitutional empathy has to be considered. Your lordships have said that empathy must guide conduct. Is a direction which on the face of it on the teeth of what the law suggests, and we don’t have the mechanism for it, and the voiceless dogs, in that backdrop. And the doctrine of proportionality. Was the interim order the most proportional response? The article which we were asked to read yesterday, the converse of that is an article where stray dogs are running to protect a baby which was abandoned. This total destruction of animal territorial rights, whether it is proportionate to human safety. Proportionality analysis requires examining suitability, necessity and balance. Somebody said this is perhaps a pilot project to deal with the unfamiliar. But more importantly it is to find a way for the law to function where it is incapacitated because of various reasons. Dogs have become a part of establishment and have found a way to coexist. Institutions may be allowed to take care of their problems. Your lordships have vast powers but they are circumscribed by some limitations," he said..The hearing will continue on January 13..[Read Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
