The Supreme Court, which has been overseeing cases related to stray dog bite incidents, on Monday expressed strong concern over reports that government employees were feeding and encouraging stray dogs despite earlier directions from the court. The bench noted that such actions violated its previous orders regarding designated feeding zones for stray animals. The matter has now been scheduled for further orders on Friday.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria stated that it would soon issue directions for government institutions and public sector undertakings where employees were feeding and encouraging stray dogs despite clear court instructions to the contrary.
The remarks came during a hearing attended by the chief secretaries of all states and union territories except West Bengal, Telangana and Kerala, who were required to appear personally following a previous order issued on October 27 for non-compliance with earlier directives.
In August, the Supreme Court had sought updates on the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, which mandate sterilisation and vaccination of stray dogs under a catch, neuter, vaccinate and release model. However, after three months, only West Bengal, Telangana and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had filed their responses. On Monday, Kerala’s principal secretary appeared on behalf of the state after its chief secretary requested exemption.
The court was hearing a suo motu case that arose from media reports highlighting public safety concerns due to the growing number of stray dog bite incidents. The bench emphasised the need to maintain a balance between public safety and the humane treatment of animals as required under the ABC Rules.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Madhya Pradesh informed the court that all states and union territories had now filed their responses as directed in the October 27 order. The bench then said it would soon issue further directions on preventing dog-bite incidents, noting that such cases continued to occur despite earlier orders, which according to the court was bringing disrepute to the country internationally.
The court also directed that the Animal Welfare Board of India be made a party to the case and asked senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal acting as amicus curiae to prepare a detailed compliance checklist based on the responses from states and union territories.
Mehta further suggested that victims of dog bites should also be heard alongside private organisations and individuals. In previous hearings, the court had allowed such interventions from animal welfare groups and individuals provided they contributed ₹2 lakh and ₹25,000 respectively toward dog welfare initiatives.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing one of the intervenors informed the bench that his clients had already prepared a comparative checklist showing how each state and union territory had performed in implementing the court’s directions. The court allowed this document to be shared with the amicus curiae.
In a significant move, the bench also allowed dog-bite victims to join the case as parties without any deposit requirement. Since all states and union territories had now filed their reports, the court relaxed its earlier order mandating the physical presence of chief secretaries. However, it warned that their presence would be required again if any state failed to comply with future directions.
The court criticised several states for their slow response saying that their inaction had forced the bench to summon top bureaucrats, a step rarely taken. The suo motu case was initiated on July 28 after reports of rising stray dog attacks and rabies infections, especially among children in Delhi and other parts of the country.
