Stray dogs case in Supreme Court | ‘Dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs,' observes SC— key updates

THE Supreme Court of India on Thursday continued its hearing on the management of stray dogs, flagging serious concerns over public safety, rising dog bite incidents and the patchy enforcement of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules by municipal authorities across India.

Court stresses enforcement, not elimination

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria made it clear that the case was not about removing dogs from urban spaces but about ensuring faithful implementation of the existing legal framework.

The matter had regained national attention last year in November after an order directing the rounding up and sheltering of stray dogs in Delhi triggered widespread protests from animal rights groups.

That direction was later modified, with the present Bench emphasising vaccination, sterilisation and release rather than permanent confinement.

During the hearing, the court underscored that the real issue lay in administrative failure. Municipal bodies, counsel submitted, had neither built adequate infrastructure nor consistently applied the ABC Rules, despite these being in force nationwide.

‘Fear often provokes aggression,’ says Bench

In a set of remarks that drew attention during the proceedings, the Bench reflected on animal behaviour and human conduct. “The dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs. It will always attack when it senses that. We are talking from personal experience,” the Court observed.

It added, “Don't nod your heads. If they know you’re scared, there is a higher chance they’ll attack you. Even your pet will do it.”

The comments were made in the context of balancing human safety with animal welfare, a balance the Court said must remain central to any solution.

Territorial behaviour and feeding zones

Counsel appearing in the matter highlighted the distinction between pet dogs and strays, cautioning that poorly planned interventions could worsen conflict. “We are not suggesting that dogs have to be done away with. But the scheme of the act has to be understood in the right perspective,” one counsel told the Court.

Another submission stressed the territorial nature of community dogs. “The basic problem is that dogs are territorial. Every 200-300 metres their territory changes,” counsel argued, warning that unregulated feeding zones could escalate tensions among dogs and residents alike.

At one point, the Bench remarked pointedly on competing urban priorities: “Tell us how many dogs you want roaming around in hospital corridors?”

Call for expert oversight and data-driven policy

Senior advocate Nakul Dewan urged the Court to consider constituting an expert committee, arguing that the issue required scientific and humane solutions rather than ad hoc directions. “This is not a problem that can be eliminated in a day. We need to decelerate the growth of community dogs,” he said.

Dewan also raised the issue of microchipping, prompting the Bench to ask whether mandatory microchipping for pet dogs was actually being enforced. He pointed to the absence of reliable nationwide data and the limited number of accredited animal birth control centres, noting that effective implementation would only be possible once systems were properly established.

Budget constraints and unintended consequences

Several senior counsel drew attention to financial and logistical hurdles faced by local bodies. One submission noted that there were only a handful of government-owned shelters across the country, primarily meant for sick or injured animals and capable of housing only about 100 dogs each.

Another warned that sudden or large-scale removal of dogs could have unintended ecological consequences, including a rise in rodent populations.

Students, institutions and the ‘IIT model’

The Court also heard submissions from counsel representing students of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, who described a community-led approach. “We have been sterilising at our own expense. We take them out of the campus, we get them vaccinated, sterilised and bring them back,” the counsel said. When asked whether the dog population had increased, the response was clear: “No. It has stayed the same. We have not had no dog bite incident in CLC in last 10 years. We have controlled situation in DU.”

Senior advocate Karuna Nandy, appearing as a frontline implementer of the ABC Rules, cited the example of IIT Delhi. “We worked very closely with the staff and students, we implemented the ABC program on a war footing. The result was no case of rabies in the last 3 years, bite complains eliminated without relocating dogs or creating permanent detention facilities,” she told the Court, adding that micro-chipping and geotagging had enabled precise monitoring of dog behaviour and vulnerabilities.

Nandy also stressed the need for isolation vans for rabid dogs, dedicated incinerators for carcass disposal, and the segregation of stray dog and pet dog bite data to fix accountability. Referring to judicial precedent, she noted that feeding zones must be determined in consultation with local resident welfare associations.

No legislative vacuum, argues Luthra

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra questioned whether the Court should issue directions beyond the existing rules. “When rules exist, should this court override the rules when there is no legislative vacuum?” he asked, pointing to precedents that answered the question in the negative. He argued that if the ABC framework required modification, it should be examined by an expert body rather than reshaped through judicial orders.

Hearing to continue

The Bench indicated that the crux of the matter remained proper enforcement of the ABC Rules rather than their dilution or abandonment. With arguments from multiple stakeholders placing data, science and infrastructure at the centre of the debate, the Court adjourned the matter.

The hearing will resume on Friday at 10:30 am.