The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 13 January 2026, indicated that it may impose liability on both state authorities and dog feeders for injuries and deaths caused by stray dog attacks, remarking that those who wish to care for dogs should take them into their homes rather than allowing them to roam freely in public spaces.
The observations were made by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria while hearing a suo motu case on the stray dog menace.
Justice Nath said that the Court was inclined to hold both the State and dog feeders accountable for attacks. “For every dog bite, death or injury caused to children or 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 loitering around, biting, scaring people?” he said.
Justice Mehta raised similar concerns, asking, “Who should be held accountable when dogs attack a 9-year-old? The organization that is feeding them? You want us to shut our eyes to the problem.”
The Bench further observed that animals roaming freely in public spaces could not be treated as ownerless when incidents occurred. “Who will owe responsibility when stray dog attacks someone? Stray dog can’t be in possession of anyone. If you want [a pet], take license,” Justice Mehta said.
Earlier Court Directions
The Bench was monitoring compliance with its November 2025 order, which had directed local authorities to remove stray dogs from bus stands, railway stations, hospitals, schools, campuses and other public institutions. The Court had also ordered that the dogs be vaccinated and sterilised under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and not released back to the same spot from where they were picked up.
Following this order, several animal rights groups filed applications seeking its modification, particularly objecting to the embargo on re-releasing dogs in the same areas. The Court heard arguments on the issue for three days last week.
Arguments Supporting the Court’s Order
On Tuesday, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for an organisation, strongly defended the November 7 order. He argued that the order was legally sound and based on statutory rules, and that there was no need for any new expert committee since multiple reports were already on record.
Justice Mehta remarked that Datar was “the first who has come to the rescue of the order.”
Datar submitted that stray dogs have no legal right to occupy institutional premises or public spaces where people have access. He argued that if humans could not reside in such spaces, animals could not either, and said that returning dogs to such places would amount to “animal trespass.”
He relied on provisions of the ABC Rules and on Madras High Court judgments upholding the public’s right to free passage in streets.
Datar also referred to a separate writ petition on feral dogs in wildlife areas, especially Ladakh, where he said around 55,000 free-ranging dogs were posing a severe threat to critically endangered species. He told the Court that scientific models showed dog populations and bite incidents could be drastically reduced within a few years if appropriate measures were taken.
Justice Mehta noted that the problem had now extended even to court premises, referring to a recent dog bite incident at the Gujarat High Court. He also said municipal workers attempting to catch dogs had been attacked by “so-called dog lovers” (lawyers).
Animal Welfare Side Urges Balance
Appearing for an animal welfare trust, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh urged the Court to look at the issue from the standpoint of ecological balance, not just as a human-versus-animal conflict. He cited data on snake-bite deaths and said dogs played a role in controlling rodents and maintaining ecosystem stability.
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand emphasised that the law required animals to be treated with compassion and warned against approaches that amounted to culling. She said the shortage of ABC centres and inadequate infrastructure was a major cause of the problem and cautioned that removing dogs without replacement could lead to more aggressive animals occupying those spaces.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy described the issue as an emotional one, prompting Justice Mehta to remark that emotions so far appeared to be “only for dogs.” When Guruswamy cited parliamentary debates, Justice Mehta said Members of Parliament were “an elite class.”
Justice Nath urged all sides to let the Court “take the authorities to task” and start a concrete process, noting that the situation had worsened due to prolonged inaction. Justice Mehta added that the proceedings were beginning to resemble a “public platform rather than a court proceeding.”
Call for Census and Data
Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria submitted that the core problem was the failure to implement the ABC programme and the lack of any proper census of stray dogs. He suggested a committee chaired by the Attorney General to conduct a census and review implementation.
The Bench responded that most of these submissions had already been made earlier. Justice Mehta questioned how population figures could be claimed without any census, calling such estimates “totally unrealistic.”
Billimoria also cautioned against reliance on media reports as evidence, saying they sometimes created an “echo chamber.” Justice Nath asked whether he was suggesting that the petitions should not have been registered at all, to which Billimoria clarified that his concern was only about over-reliance on news reports.
Dog Bite Victim’s Testimony
The Court also heard Kamna Pandey, a dog-bite survivor, who said she had been mauled two decades ago and later discovered that the dog which attacked her had been subjected to prolonged cruelty such as stoning and kicking. She said fear-induced defensive aggression was a major factor in dog attacks.
Pandey told the Court that she had eventually adopted the dog that bit her and that it never bit anyone again. She called for a more holistic, non-confining approach, including dog homes in institutional settings.
Another counsel urged that the November 7 order should also apply to rural areas.
The matter will be heard next on 20 January 2026 at 2 PM.
Source: LiveLaw
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
