A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria observed that the existing system for managing stray dogs reflects lapses at the local administration level. “If an attack by stray dogs leads to injury or loss of life, responsibility may lie not only with municipal bodies but also with those who feed the dogs,” the bench said, adding that it would not hesitate to fix accountability where warranted.
The court clarified that its earlier remarks should not be treated lightly. “It would be wrong to assume that the court’s comments were made in jest. We are serious,” the bench noted. The judges indicated that the hearing would be concluded after arguments from private parties, following which states would be granted a day to place their responses on record.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Siddharth Dave emphasised that the Constitution enjoins compassion towards all living beings. He said courts have consistently recognised the need to balance human safety with the protection of animals in cases involving human-animal conflict. Dave maintained that no individual was being accused and expressed concern over what he described as inappropriate public commentary and negative publicity surrounding the case.
He urged municipal corporations to strengthen their capacity by hiring adequately trained personnel to manage stray dog populations. Stressing coexistence, Dave said the issue must be approached with sensitivity, as animals are voiceless and the ecosystem requires balance.
On the other hand, advocate Manoj Shirsat argued that the primary responsibility for controlling stray dogs rests with municipal corporations and state governments. He cited an earlier Bombay High Court judgment delivered by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, now Chief Justice of India, which held that the failure to address stray dog threats amounts to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
According to that ruling, deaths caused by stray dog attacks would constitute a breach of the right to life, making the state liable to pay compensation. Shirsat contended that shifting responsibility away from civic bodies would dilute accountability and delay effective action.
The Supreme Court’s remarks come amid rising public concern over stray dog attacks in several states. The court is expected to examine whether clearer guidelines and stricter enforcement mechanisms are required to ensure public safety while upholding animal welfare norms.
