The Supreme Court on Thursday, while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the management of stray dogs and the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework across the country, observed that dogs were capable of sensing fear in humans, a behavioural trait that may precipitate aggressive responses.
The three-judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria made the oral observations during proceedings examining the balance between animal welfare obligations and the State’s duty to ensure public safety in public and residential spaces.
During the hearing, a counsel for one of the petitioners submitted that designated feeding zones, rather than mitigating conflict, had in several instances emerged as points of persistent nuisance. The congregation of stray dogs at such locations posed ongoing safety risks for residents. The Court was also apprised of widespread non-compliance by pet owners, including the failure to leash dogs in public areas, further aggravating pedestrian and commuter safety concerns.
On the issue of responsibility, it was contended that the State could not be treated as the owner of stray dogs and that its statutory obligation was confined to vaccination and sterilisation in terms of the Animal Birth Control Rules framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Counsel emphasised that public roads, access points, and residential streets must remain unobstructed and safe, and that the right to access one’s home and neighbourhood without fear is an inseparable facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Counsel appearing for petitioner Vijay Goyal argued that the controversy could not be reduced to a binary of animal welfare versus human compassion. Instead, it raised fundamental constitutional questions concerning the right of residents to safely inhabit and navigate public spaces without the constant apprehension of attack or injury.
It was further submitted that dogs were inherently territorial, with territories typically shifting every few hundred metres. Feeding arrangements situated far from a dog’s habitual territory were said to compel animals to intrude into rival zones, increasing the likelihood of aggressive encounters and, consequently, incidents of dog bites affecting local residents.
The petitioner sought an expansion of the Court’s earlier directions mandating the permanent removal of stray dogs from institutional premises to include residential areas as well. It was argued that while animals could not be regulated through legal instruction, human stakeholders, such as pet owners and feeders, can and must be subjected to regulatory oversight. Emphasis was placed on the original objective of the ABC Rules, which envisage a gradual reduction of the stray population through sterilisation, rather than its inadvertent proliferation through unregulated feeding practices.
Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan suggested the Trap–Neuter–Release (TNR) model, submitting that sterilised dogs should ordinarily be returned to their original localities to prevent territorial disruption. He informed the Court that microchipping initiatives have commenced in cities such as Bengaluru, noting that such technological measures were both feasible and cost-effective.
Dewan further suggested the constitution of a multidisciplinary expert committee to address the issue comprehensively, cautioning against the unchecked growth of so-called ‘community dogs’. He urged the Court to adopt a calibrated approach that harmonises legislative intent with ground realities, warning against harsh measures driven by administrative failure in implementing existing law.
Senior advocate Vinay Navare clarified that the validity of the ABC Rules was not under challenge and submitted that the core issue lay in deficient and inconsistent enforcement by local authorities. Referring to the ‘Lucknow model’ as a workable example, he advocated decentralised implementation through municipal bodies, panchayats, and local councils, supported by enhanced infrastructure. He suggested that while the Supreme Court could lay down a broad framework, High Courts could monitor enforcement at the state level.
Responding to the submissions, the Bench clarified that it had not ordered the blanket removal of all stray dogs from public spaces. It reiterated that its earlier directions were confined to institutional areas such as hospitals, schools, and similar sensitive zones, where public safety considerations assume heightened significance. Expressing concern, the Court queried the permissibility of stray dogs in hospital premises and patient care areas, underscoring that public health and safety remain paramount.
The Bench also took note of ecological considerations raised during the hearing, including submissions that abrupt removal of dogs could result in unintended consequences such as an increase in rodent and monkey populations. It was submitted that dogs play a role in maintaining ecological balance by controlling rodents, which are known vectors of disease.
Throughout the proceedings, the Court emphasised that while animal welfare was a constitutional and statutory concern, it could not eclipse the State’s obligation to protect human life and ensure safe access to public spaces. The Bench reiterated that strict and uniform compliance with the ABC Rules, rather than ad hoc or emotionally driven responses, constituted the legally sustainable course.
The post Supreme Court flags public safety concerns in stray dog management appeared first on India Legal.