The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would impose liability on states and Union Territories in the form of monetary compensation for every dog-bite victim in the country, as it flagged inaction by the authorities in curbing the stray dog menace.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria said those seeking to protect the rights of the animals could adopt stray dogs after procuring necessary licences.
“For every dog bite, death or injury caused to children or the elderly, we are likely going to fix heavy compensation by the State, for not doing anything. Also, liability and accountability on those who are saying we are feeding dogs. Do it, take them to your house. Why should dogs be littering around, biting, scaring people?” Justice Nath, heading the bench, told senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for some animal activists.
“All of you allow us to take to task the authorities so
that we can set the process in motion. Everyone is repeating the same thing. Allow us to pass an order. We have to spend half a day calling the
authorities’ response. The problem has multiplied 1,000 times because of their inaction,” he added.
The bench made the observations on the fourth day of hearing on the curbs imposed by the top court through its November 7 order on the movement of stray animals, particularly dogs, in public places amid rising cases of dog bites and rabies-related deaths.
On Tuesday, a visibly irked Justice Mehta said the four-day hearing on dogs was the longest he had been part
of in his three-decade judicial career.
Guruswamy argued that killing dogs did not work as well as sterilisation and flagged the under-utilisation of funds by shelters.
“The legislature realises that culling has failed. When we talk of removing a species, we are doing something to ourselves. We cannot be in short supply of compassion. No argument allows for cruelty and culling,” the senior counsel argued.
Senior advocate Percival Billimoria, appearing for an animal activist, said: “Why are they (dogs) on the streets? Because ABC (Animal Birth Control) has not been conducted effectively,” he submitted.
He quoted a PIB report of April 1, 2025, that said intensive implementation of the ABC programme was the only rational and scientific solution to the overpopulation of street dogs.
However, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the organisations of dog-bite victims, defended the November 7 order passed by the top court.
Datar said the November 7 judgment covering government institutions should be extended even to airports and other public places not covered by the earlier order.
This prompted Justice Mehta to remark: “You are the first who has come to the rescue of the order.”
Datar referred to a separate writ petition filed by conservation groups regarding feral dogs in wildlife areas, especially Ladakh. He told the court that reports placed before it showed the presence of around 55,000 free-ranging feral dogs in Ladakh, posing a grave threat to at least nine critically endangered species.
The senior counsel argued that if humans could not live in residential areas because of stray dogs, then by no stretch of the imagination did dogs have a right to live there.
“If a street dog lives in a gated campus, it remains a street dog. It does not gain a right to stay there,” he argued.
Justice Mehta asked: “Suppose there’s an RWA (Resident Welfare Association) and 95 per cent do not desire the presence of dogs.... should the desire of 5 per cent continue? What will weigh under the ABC rules?”
Datar said the issue was not about the majority opinion. He said even an individual had the right to object to the presence of stray dogs.
“Even on ordinary roads, we are not able to walk before sunrise! Premises within hospital, railway stations cannot be treated as open areas for dogs to roam freely,” the counsel argued.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing an animal welfare trust, said dog-bite claims were being exaggerated. He submitted that more than 50,000 had died in the country in 2025 because of snake bites.
“Dogs are important for rodent control. Your Lordships have to balance the ecosystem. Biting is one part of the dog’s issue. Their role in the ecosystem must be considered,” Singh pleaded.
Senior advocate Pinky Anand said dogs should be treated with compassion. Anand drew an analogy between tuberculosis and dog bites.
“We were able to eradicate TB through policies. We didn’t eradicate the people with TB. We have only 77 ABC centres today. If dogs are not relocated back, more ferocious dogs will come,” she cautioned.
The arguments will resume on January 20.
On November 7, the top court directed the relocation of stray canines to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination. It also said stray dogs should not be released back to the place they were picked up from. It directed the authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from the state highways, national highways and expressways.