Supreme Court weighs liability for dog bites as stray dog case enters decisive phase

The Supreme Court on January 20 resumed hearings in the long-running case on the management of stray dogs in India, signaling that accountability for dog-bite incidents may soon be fixed on both state governments and individual feeders.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria took up the matter, reiterating concerns over the poor implementation of existing norms despite guidelines having been in place for years.

At the previous hearing on January 13, the court had indicated it was considering directing states to compensate victims of dog attacks, observing that little had changed on the ground over the past five years. The bench again flagged systemic failure in enforcing the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and related regulations governing stray animals.

Submissions from individuals, NGOs end

The court recorded that submissions from private individuals and non-governmental organisations had concluded. Justice Vikram Nath asked whether the compilation note prepared by the Amicus Curiae was ready. Senior advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, assisting the court as Amicus, said inputs from seven states were still awaited.

The bench directed that the matter be listed on January 28 at 2 pm, when it will hear the Amicus Curiae, counsel for the National Human Rights Commission, and representatives of all states and Union Territories.

Dog feeders defend role

Counsel appearing for dog feeders argued that feeders perform a public function by understanding canine behaviour, identifying sick animals and preventing scavenging and dog fights. Feeding, he said, reduced aggression and did not contribute to the spread of disease. Citing figures, the counsel submitted that the annual cost of feeding worked out to around ₹18,250 per dog.

Questioning calls for the removal of dogs, he argued that such funds could instead be used to remove vulnerable people, including orphans, from pavements. Dog feeders, he contended, are protected under Rule 20 of the ABC Rules, which reflects legislative intent and constitutional values.

Referring to international examples, including Tanzania, the counsel claimed that dog populations and bite incidents had been successfully reduced elsewhere through humane methods, stressing that empathy should not be criminalized.

Feeder accountability remark ‘not sarcastic’, court clarifies

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan told the bench that judicial observations often have real-world consequences, referring to an earlier remark that dog feeders could be held accountable for dog-bite incidents. He suggested the comment may have been made sarcastically.

Justice Nath clarified that the observation was not sarcastic and was made in all seriousness.

Sterilization works in pockets, fails in most cities: Bhushan

Bhushan argued that while sterilization programmes had delivered results in limited areas such as Lucknow, they had failed across most cities. He said sterilization reduces both the stray dog population and aggression over time, but the programme’s effectiveness depends on transparency and accountability.

He suggested that designated authorities be made responsible for responding to complaints about unsterilised dogs and proposed ultrasound checks in cases of doubt to verify whether sterilisation had actually been carried out.

Allegations of interference, corruption in ABC programmes

Several counsels raised concerns over the functioning of animal welfare bodies and ABC centres. One advocate alleged that animal welfare organisations faced undue interference from the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), which, he said, has only a supervisory role and no field staff outside Haryana. Random complaints by activists, he claimed, often led to work orders being stalled.

Another counsel said only 66 ABC centres were officially recognised across India and alleged widespread corruption, including centres billing crores while existing largely on paper. Disturbing claims were also made of ovaries being removed from dogs and sent to other centres merely for counting, instead of being destroyed immediately as required.

Advocate N M Kapadia told the court that in the absence of rabid dogs, others should not be penalised, pointing to areas where successful ABC programmes had reduced dog density to around five per kilometre.

A separate submission highlighted studies by a student society of NLSIU, which showed dog numbers falling from 40 to 20 in certain zones, with zero dog-bite incidents reported last year.

A counsel representing a victim, however, said that with the suo motu case still pending, accountability for dog bites had effectively collapsed, leaving victims without recourse. He also pointed out that stray dogs currently have no protection under the Wildlife Protection Act.

The case will return to the Supreme Court on January 28, when states and Union Territories are expected to respond to the court’s pointed questions on enforcement, liability and compensation.