“Are We Only Talking About Dogs?” Supreme Court Raises Broader Animal Life Question in Stray Dog Hearing

Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued its detailed hearing on a series of petitions related to the stray dog issue, signalling that the debate cannot be viewed through a narrow lens. While arguments largely focused on public safety and dog population control, the court repeatedly broadened the discussion to include the rights and treatment of all animals.

During the proceedings, the bench questioned the selective nature of the arguments being presented. At one point, the court remarked, “What about other animal lives? What about chickens and goats? Don’t they have lives?”, indicating that policy decisions cannot be guided by emotional responses to one species alone.

An emotional moment unfolded when a petitioner attempted to display a photograph of a 90-year-old person who allegedly died after a stray dog attack. The counsel said, “See, this is what happens when stray dogs attack.” The bench immediately intervened, responding, “There is no need to show this photo,” and asked counsel to proceed with legal arguments instead of visuals.

Lawyers representing victims of dog attacks argued that public safety must take precedence. One counsel told the court, “People are suffering due to stray dogs. Human rights have to be protected.” Drawing comparisons with other countries, he stated that Japan and the United States operate shelters where abandoned dogs are housed and euthanised if not adopted, adding that Japan has not reported rabies deaths since 1950.

Animal welfare advocates pushed back, warning of unintended consequences. An activist submitted, “If all stray dogs are removed, what will happen to garbage and monkeys?” suggesting that dogs play a role in urban ecological balance.

The father of an eight-year-old girl attacked by stray dogs in Noida last year also addressed the court, alleging inaction by civic authorities. He argued that Resident Welfare Associations should be empowered to mark housing societies as “no dog zones” when safety concerns arise.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing in the matter, said, “We are here as dog lovers and as lovers of the environment.” Responding to the court’s query on other animals, he remarked, “I have stopped eating chicken because they are kept in such cruel conditions.” Drawing an analogy, he added, “If one tiger becomes a man-eater, it doesn’t mean all tigers should be killed.”

Sibal supported the Capture–Sterilise–Vaccinate–Release (CSVR) model, stating, “Across the world, this method has reduced dog populations significantly.” He warned that removing stray dogs entirely could worsen sanitation issues and impose a massive financial burden on municipal bodies.

Echoing similar concerns, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves said dog bite statistics were misleading, noting, “Each injection dose is counted as a separate dog bite case.” He also pointed out that several states have reported no rabies cases in recent years, cautioning against decisions driven by panic.

The court, however, questioned the presence of dogs in sensitive spaces, observing, “Why do we need stray dogs inside schools, hospitals, or courts?” It clarified that earlier directions were limited to institutional areas, not public roads.

The Solicitor General argued that the debate was being dominated by dog-specific concerns. He said decisions on allowing dogs in gated colonies should rest with RWAs, adding, “Problems arise when a majority opposes and a small group insists.” He further asked, “What if someone tomorrow wants to keep a buffalo or cow inside their home?”

Concluding the session, Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “We will hear the lovers and the haters both today. We have all the time,” underscoring the court’s intent to balance compassion with public safety before arriving at any final decision.