The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday underscored the complexities of the growing stray dog issue, observing that it is impossible to “read an animal’s mind when it is in a mood to bite,” and stressed that prevention is better than cure. The remarks came during a hearing of the court’s suo motu case on stray dog attacks and related public safety concerns.
The bench took serious note of the alarming increase in dog bite incidents in public spaces including educational campuses, hospitals, railway stations and other institutional areas. A three-judge bench had previously issued a series of directions to curb the menace and ensure the safety of citizens.
In a key order on November 7 last year, the court had mandated the immediate capture and relocation of stray dogs to designated shelters after they are sterilised and vaccinated. The bench clarified that canines picked up should not be released back into the areas from which they were taken. Authorities were also instructed to remove stray dogs and other animals from state highways, national highways and expressways to prevent road accidents and other hazards.
During the ongoing hearings, the court reiterated that stray dog attacks represent not merely isolated incidents but a systemic failure to safeguard public spaces. It emphasised that securing premises from clearly preventable hazards is imperative, especially in high-footfall zones.
In a separate ruling last July, the top court had described the situation in Delhi and neighbouring regions as “extremely grim”, noting a sharp rise in dog bite cases and human fatalities due to rabies. For the national capital, the court directed that all stray dogs be shifted from residential localities to proper shelters equipped with trained personnel capable of handling, sterilising and vaccinating the animals.
The court also addressed disputes over feeding practices. It directed municipal authorities to demarcate dedicated feeding zones for stray dogs and warned that public feeding outside designated areas will attract strict action.
On the issue of releasing dogs back into communities, the bench clarified that relocation orders do not apply to animals suspected of having rabies or showing aggressive behaviour.
The Supreme Court cautioned that any obstruction of authorised efforts to manage stray dog populations, including interference with pickups by civic bodies, will result in strict penal action. As the case progresses, the focus remains on balancing humane treatment of animals with public health and safety imperatives.
