Supreme Court declines to issue general directions on harassment of stray dog feeders

The court said allegations involving assault, molestation, or intimidation are matters of law and order and must be addressed through the statutory process

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to issue general or blanket directions regarding alleged harassment of stray dog feeders and caregivers, observing that it cannot examine individual incidents and that victims must approach law enforcement agencies to set the criminal law in motion.

The court declined to entertain individual complaints. (HT PHOTO)

Track updates on Iran unrest

A bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria underlined that allegations involving assault, molestation, or intimidation are matters of law and order and must be addressed through the statutory process for registration of first information reports (FIRs). The court said it would not be possible for it to go into the facts of individual cases or frame generic directions based on anecdotal instances.

“If they are molesting women, lodge FIRs. That is a criminal offence,” said the bench, responding to submissions highlighting alleged attacks on women dog feeders. It added that if authorities refuse to register FIRs, the affected persons have remedies under the law, including approaching the high courts.

The court was hearing submissions by senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, appearing for dog feeders and caregivers, who alleged that vigilante groups were targeting women under the guise of enforcing the court’s earlier directions on stray dog management. Pavani cited incidents from Tamil Nadu, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, including a case from Vellore where vigilantes allegedly entered a woman feeder’s house and assaulted her.

The bench, however, declined to entertain such individual complaints in the ongoing proceedings. “We cannot go into these individual cases. This is a law-and-order issue,” it said, reiterating that criminal offences must follow the established legal process. “If a criminal offence is registered, there is a procedure laid down. Avail of those remedies and set criminal law into motion.”

When Pavani argued that harassment of feeders was occurring across the country, the bench remained unconvinced, stating that the Supreme Court could not act as a fact-finding forum for scattered incidents. It made it clear that it would not issue omnibus directions on the premise that such incidents were widespread.

The bench also rejected attempts to widen the scope of the proceedings to issues unrelated to stray dogs. When submissions were made regarding illegal breeding and import of foreign dog breeds and calls to promote adoption of indigenous dogs, the court said the issue had no connection with the matter before it.

“This has nothing to do with the issue of stray dogs. Our order was confined to stray dogs,” said the bench, adding that policy questions on breeding or import of foreign breeds fell outside the scope of the case. It also dismissed submissions regarding derogatory remarks allegedly made against women feeders, observing that criticism, even in offensive terms, does not warrant judicial intervention unless it crosses into criminal conduct.

The Friday hearing forms part of a larger suo motu exercise by the court on stray dog management, following reports of a spike in dog bite incidents and repeated non-compliance by municipal bodies with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.

Earlier this week, the same bench had clarified that it has not ordered the killing of stray dogs nor had it interfered with the regime governing stray dogs on public streets, but had confined its directions strictly to institutional spaces, and that its directions were limited to removing strays from high-risk institutional areas such as schools, hospitals, transport hubs and sports complexes in the interest of public safety.

The court on January 7 consistently maintained that it is enforcing the ABC Rules, not dismantling them, and that the failure lies squarely with local authorities across states and Union territories that have neglected sterilisation, vaccination, shelter creation, and waste management for years.

The bench also repeatedly emphasised that its November directions carve out a limited exception to the catch-neuter-vaccinate-release model for sensitive, high-footfall institutional premises, citing the state’s obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect children, patients, and commuters from preventable harm.

During Friday’s hearing, the bench heard a range of submissions questioning both the efficacy of the existing Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework and the limits of judicial intervention in the field.

Appearing for one of the applicants, counsel argued that there could be no “one-size-fits-all” solution for the removal of stray dogs from public spaces, submitting that the issue required a nuanced approach grounded in science and behavioural psychology. While conceding that the ABC Rules may not be foolproof, the counsel said they merited a re-examination rather than outright rejection, and suggested differentiating between aggressive and non-aggressive dogs. As an illustration, reference was made to a dog named “Goldie” that has reportedly lived on the premises of AIIMS for years.

The court responded sharply, questioning the propriety of dogs being present in hospital premises at all. Observing that any dog living on the streets was likely to carry ticks, the bench warned that the presence of such animals in hospitals could have “disastrous consequences” and cautioned against what it described as attempts to “glorify” the presence of stray dogs in sensitive public spaces like hospitals. “Please understand the reality of what is being argued,” the court told counsel, remarking that some of the dog-lover’s perspective appeared “completely removed from reality.”

Counsel also suggested measures such as colour-coded collars to identify dogs that had previously bitten humans, claiming that similar models were in use in countries such as Georgia and Armenia. The bench, however, questioned the relevance of those examples, pointing to the vastly different population sizes and urban realities, and urged counsel to be “realistic.”

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for a body called All Creatures Big and Small (ACGS), argued that the matter had now moved beyond a simple dog-versus-human debate and implicated core constitutional principles. Singhvi submitted that the statute and the ABC Rules together constituted a “complete code” occupying the entire field. Describing the rules as a “seamless web”, he argued that judicial intervention was permissible only in legislative gaps, not in areas where Parliament and the rule-making authority had consciously framed detailed norms.

Singhvi emphasised that the court’s obligation to enforce rights arose primarily in the “absence of legislation”, and cautioned that any attempt by the Supreme Court to rework or supplant the ABC regime would amount to constructing a “new edifice”. While acknowledging the assistance of amici curiae, Singhvi argued that amici were legal advisors rather than domain experts, and urged the court to involve subject-matter specialists if it proposed to reconsider the existing framework. He cited the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of its Aravalli order as an example of the need for domain expertise, warning that the court’s November 7 order carried trappings of finality and had already triggered irreversible consequences, including financial commitments.

Senior advocates Zal Andhyarujina, Rajshekhar Rao, Madhavi Divan, Shadan Farasat, and Percival Billimoria also advanced submissions during the course of the hearing. The bench indicated that it would continue hearing the matter next week.