Supreme Court flags surge in stray dog attack videos, weighs safety, welfare balance

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that numerous videos circulating on online platforms such as YouTube depict stray dogs attacking children and elderly people, underscoring growing public concern over street dog safety.

A three-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria made the remark while responding to submissions by senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao, who was appearing for a dog welfare organisation. Rao referred to videos annexed to his submissions, prompting the Bench to remark that there were “any number” of such videos available publicly and that the court was not inclined to engage in comparisons.

The issue of stray dogs has remained under judicial scrutiny after it drew nationwide attention last year, when a separate Bench directed Delhi’s municipal authorities to round up and shelter street dogs, an order that sparked protests from animal rights groups. That direction was later modified by the present Bench, which instead mandated vaccination, sterilisation and release of dogs, in line with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework.

Also read: CCI dismisses complaint alleging digital ad manipulation by Google, Amazon, Flipkart, and others

In subsequent orders, the court directed state governments and the National Highways Authority of India to remove stray animals from highways and instructed educational and healthcare institutions, both public and private, to fence their premises within eight weeks to prevent dog bites. The court had also clarified that dogs removed from institutional areas should not be released back at the same location.

During earlier proceedings, the Bench asked counsel to be prepared to address a newspaper report on feral dogs in Ladakh, which highlighted how increased tourism, military presence and unmanaged waste have contributed to dogs preying on endangered wildlife and attacking people in the region.

When the matter was taken up again, senior advocate Krishnan Venugopal informed the court that his client had examined the Ladakh issue and submitted a note on the subject. Meanwhile, senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, representing pro-dog groups, raised concerns about harassment faced by women who feed stray dogs, alleging the rise of “anti-feeder vigilantes”.

Also read: I-T depart slaps Rs 1,559 crore demand on HUL

The court advised affected individuals to pursue legal remedies, including filing complaints and approaching high courts, rather than raising individual incidents during the ongoing hearing.

Several senior advocates offered policy suggestions to address the problem. Shadan Farasat argued that the issue reflected a failure of the State to balance public safety and animal welfare, calling for zoning of public spaces, dog-free areas around schools, structured feeding protocols and time-bound enforcement of ABC rules.

Additional proposals included creating state-level monitoring dashboards, deploying portable sterilisation units to speed up animal birth control efforts, and introducing identification methods to distinguish aggressive dogs, suggestions that drew scepticism from the Bench, which cautioned against impractical comparisons with smaller countries.

While animal welfare organisations reiterated that indiscriminate removal of dogs could worsen population growth, others stressed the need for scientific, legally compliant sterilisation programmes combined with vaccination and regulated feeding zones.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for an animal rights body, warned that judicial intervention should remain limited where statutory frameworks already exist, urging the court to rely on expert input rather than fashioning policy through interim directions.

The Bench will continue hearing the matter on January 13.