‘Why not feed them at home?’: Supreme Court slams Noida woman in stray dog feeding row

In a sharp intervention amid rising public concern over stray dog attacks, the Supreme Court on July 15 advised a Noida resident challenging restrictions on feeding community dogs to do so within her own home instead.

“Why don’t you feed them in your own house? Nobody is stopping you,” a visibly displeased bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta told petitioner Reema Shah, who alleged harassment by local authorities for feeding strays in her neighborhood.

The bench’s remarks came as it heard Shah’s appeal against a March 3 order of the Allahabad High Court, which had called for a balanced approach between safeguarding animals and protecting the public.

“Should we leave every lane, every road open for these large-hearted people?” the bench asked pointedly, adding, “There is all space for these animals, no space for humans.”

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Shah was acting in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, which require Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and local bodies to facilitate community dog feeding. He also noted that while feeding zones were being established in Greater Noida, no such provision existed in Noida itself.

But the Supreme Court remained unconvinced. “We give you a suggestion — open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house,” the bench said, dismissing arguments that neutral zones could be used for feeding.

The judges also raised safety concerns for morning walkers, cyclists, and two-wheeler riders. “Try cycling in the morning and see what happens,” the bench quipped, highlighting the growing threat stray dogs pose to citizens.

Shah had earlier approached the High Court seeking protection for herself and other dog feeders, as well as enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. She also sought directions to prevent harassment by RWAs and the Noida Authority.

While disposing of her petition, the Allahabad High Court had acknowledged both sides of the issue. It noted the need to protect street dogs under existing laws but stressed that “the concern of the common man” must be paramount.

“There are many instances of attacks by street dogs on the common man of late, which have resulted in loss of lives and grave inconvenience to pedestrians,” the High Court had stated, urging authorities to act “in public interest” and take “a balanced approach.”

The Supreme Court’s latest remarks further underline the judiciary’s growing emphasis on public safety in the ongoing national debate around the rights of community animals versus the safety of citizens.