The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued its hearing on a batch of petitions concerning the growing problem of stray dogs, raising sharp questions about arguments that, in the court’s view, focused exclusively on dogs while ignoring the broader issue of animal life. During the proceedings, the court asked pointedly whether the lives of other animals were being treated as less important, remarking, “What about other animal lives? What about chickens and goats? Don’t they have lives?”
As the hearing progressed, an emotionally charged moment arose when a petitioner attempted to show the judges a photograph of a 90-year-old man who was allegedly attacked by stray dogs and later died from his injuries. The petitioner sought to underline the seriousness of the issue by saying, “See, this is what happens when stray dogs attack.” The bench, however, stopped him, observing that there was no need to display such photographs in court.
Counsel representing victims and their families argued that the menace of stray dogs had become a matter of grave public concern. He told the court that people across cities were suffering due to frequent dog attacks and stressed that the protection of human rights must be given priority. Drawing attention to international practices, he referred to countries such as Japan and the United States, where abandoned dogs are taken to shelters, often referred to as “drambox” or kill shelters, and are euthanised if they are not adopted within a stipulated period. He submitted that Japan’s strict approach was the reason it has no stray dog problem today and has reportedly recorded no rabies-related deaths since 1950.
On the other side, an animal rights activist cautioned against simplistic solutions. The activist argued that removing all stray dogs from urban areas could create other unintended problems, asking what would happen to issues like unmanaged garbage or the growing monkey population if dogs, which often act as scavengers, were removed entirely from the ecosystem.
The court also heard from the father of an eight-year-old girl who was attacked by stray dogs in Noida last year. He told the bench that there had been another case in which a child of the same age was killed and alleged that the Noida Authority had failed to act despite repeated complaints from residents. He argued that Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) should be empowered to declare their housing societies as “no dog zones” if residents believed stray dogs posed a serious risk to safety.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing in the matter, said that those supporting animal welfare were not merely “dog lovers” but people who cared about the environment as a whole. When the court again questioned whether concern for dogs was overshadowing concern for other animals, Sibal responded by sharing that he had personally stopped eating chicken because of the cruelty involved in caging poultry. He further illustrated his argument by saying that if one tiger becomes a man-eater, it does not mean all tigers should be killed, suggesting that isolated incidents should not lead to blanket policies.
Sibal also referred to global best practices, stating that many countries follow the Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate and Release (CSVR) model. According to him, this approach has significantly reduced stray dog populations in several cities around the world and has proven to be effective. He argued that in India, where problems such as open garbage dumps and unplanned slums persist, the sudden removal of stray dogs could worsen public health and sanitation issues. He added that keeping all stray dogs in shelters would impose a massive financial burden on municipal bodies and criticised civic authorities for failing to properly engage agencies and non-governmental organisations to implement Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for animal welfare NGOs, questioned the reliability of official data on dog bites. He claimed that the figures were exaggerated because every injection dose administered to a victim was often recorded as a separate dog bite case. He also pointed out that official data showed no reported rabies cases in 19 states since 2021. Gonsalves warned that panic-driven policies, such as mass impounding of stray dogs, could have drastic and irreversible consequences.
During the hearing, the court clarified its earlier directions, noting that its order was limited to institutional areas such as schools, hospitals, and court premises, and did not extend to public roads. The bench asked why stray dogs were needed inside sensitive institutional spaces and questioned the objection to removing them from such areas to ensure safety.
The Solicitor General, representing the government, observed that the debate had become centred around dog lovers rather than animal lovers as a whole. He argued that decisions about whether stray dogs should be allowed in gated colonies should be taken collectively by RWAs, not by a handful of individuals. He pointed out that conflicts often arise when a large majority of residents oppose the presence of stray dogs, but a small minority insists on keeping them. To illustrate his point, he asked rhetorically what would happen if someone tomorrow claimed the right to keep a buffalo or a cow inside their home.
Appearing on behalf of a dog bite victim, another counsel told the court that his client was a senior citizen who had suffered injuries due to a dog attack. He emphasised that while many dog lovers were present in court, victims and their families also deserved to be heard. He clarified that they were not against dogs as such, but believed that the unchecked presence of stray dogs needed to be addressed. Responding to the competing arguments, Justice Vikram Nath remarked that the court would listen patiently to both sides, saying it would hear “the lovers and the haters” alike and had sufficient time to consider all viewpoints before reaching a conclusion.
