The Supreme Court docket on Friday continued its listening to on the regulation and administration of stray canines, taking views from animal welfare organisations, civil society teams and representatives of residents affected by incidents of canine assaults.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria has been listening to the matter for the previous two days, analyzing competing considerations surrounding the presence of stray canines in residential colonies, institutional campuses and public areas. A number of intervenors sought reconsideration and modification of the Court docket’s earlier instructions, urging strict adherence to the statutory framework underneath the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Delivery Management (ABC) Guidelines. They advocated a scientific, data-driven and humane inhabitants management regime, contending that sterilisation, vaccination and territorial launch of canines of their unique habitats remained the one legally permissible and globally recognised technique able to decreasing dog-bite incidents over time.
Associations representing victims of canine assaults pressed for the elimination of stray canines from housing societies and densely populated residential areas, citing heightened security dangers, significantly to kids, senior residents and individuals with disabilities. These teams argued that unchecked canine populations and inconsistent municipal enforcement had resulted in a direct infringement of the best to life and private safety underneath Article 21 of the Structure.
Showing for an animal rights activist, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted situations of alleged harassment and intimidation confronted by girls concerned in feeding neighborhood canines. She submitted that vigilante actions by non-public people and housing associations had gone unchecked, with native authorities allegedly failing to discharge their statutory duties by refusing to register complaints or provoke legal proceedings. The Bench, nonetheless, reiterated the settled authorized place underneath the Structure Bench ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Authorities of Uttar Pradesh (2014), which mandates registration of FIRs in instances disclosing cognisable offences, whereas clarifying that particular person allegations of legal conduct fell throughout the area of regulation enforcement and couldn’t be adjudicated throughout the current proceedings.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing animal welfare activists Sonia Bose and Avnish Narayan, framed the controversy as a difficulty of systemic administrative failure quite than a binary battle between human security and animal welfare. He argued that sporadic incidents of canine assaults, although severe, couldn’t justify departures from statutory mandates or collective punishment of animals. Emphasising the State’s constructive obligations underneath Article 21, he submitted that efficient enforcement of municipal legal guidelines, the ABC Guidelines and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act would adequately handle each public security and animal welfare considerations.
Farasat positioned earlier than the Court docket a structured framework proposing zoning of public areas, identification of designated feeding areas, time-bound implementation of sterilisation and vaccination programmes, fixing accountability of municipal and nodal officers, and coordinated motion between State governments and concrete native our bodies. The Bench acknowledged the try and reconcile competing constitutional values and famous the significance of proportionality in regulatory responses.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan supplemented these submissions by proposing the creation of a State-level digital monitoring mechanism to trace sterilisation drives, vaccination protection and compliance by municipal authorities. She underscored the necessity for transparency, real-time knowledge assortment and clearly demarcated institutional accountability to forestall dilution of statutory obligations.
Counsels showing for different candidates, together with actor and animal welfare advocate Sharmila Tagore, opposed requires the wholesale elimination of stray canines from city environments. They urged adoption of a scientific and behavioural assessment-based method, together with microchipping, tagging and identification of aggressive animals, coupled with focused intervention quite than indiscriminate displacement. The Bench, whereas noting these submissions, cautioned towards uncritical reliance on worldwide fashions with out accounting for India’s demographic scale, city density and infrastructural constraints.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, showing for the organisation All Creatures Nice and Small, submitted that the matter had advanced into one implicating constitutional boundaries and institutional competence. He argued that the present statutory framework constituted an built-in regulatory scheme, leaving restricted scope for judicial intervention absent a legislative vacuum or demonstrable government abdication. Singhvi additional advocated the inclusion of area specialists in veterinary science, epidemiology and concrete planning to help the Court docket, contending that such complicated socio-legal points required multidisciplinary experience past typical authorized evaluation.
These submissions had been supported by Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, who known as for calibrated and empathetic judicial oversight. He urged that establishments and municipal our bodies be afforded an inexpensive time-frame to reveal compliance with humane inhabitants management measures earlier than coercive instructions had been thought of.
All through the listening to, the Bench repeatedly underscored that whereas compassion in the direction of animals remained a constitutional and statutory crucial, public security couldn’t be compromised. The judges famous materials positioned on report indicating recurring incidents of canine assaults, significantly affecting susceptible sections of society, and confused the need of a practical and enforceable resolution that harmonised animal welfare norms with human security considerations.
The Apex Court docket listed the matter for additional listening to on January 13, 2026, noting {that a} complete and balanced adjudication would require continued engagement with all stakeholders.
