The Supreme Court has clarified that it has not instructed authorities to clear streets of all stray dogs, emphasising that animals must be managed strictly in accordance with established legal frameworks. The observation came as the court continued hearing a suo motu case on the handling of stray dogs in public areas, amid rising concerns over dog bite incidents.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria heard submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, including animal welfare organisations, people affected by dog attacks and animal rights advocates. The judges examined whether current policies strike the right balance between public safety and animal protection.

Representing animal welfare groups, senior advocate C U Singh argued that stray dogs play a role in maintaining ecological balance, particularly in urban areas like Delhi that also struggle with rodents and monkeys. He warned that abruptly removing dogs could trigger a surge in rat populations, increasing the risk of disease. Singh maintained that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme—based on sterilisation and releasing dogs back into their territories—remains the most effective solution when properly enforced.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, while questioning the claimed link between dogs, rats and monkeys, made a lighter remark, suggesting that encouraging cats could help curb rodents, as cats naturally prey on rats.

Addressing concerns about dogs entering sensitive spaces such as hospitals and university campuses, Singh said open campuses and unfenced public areas inevitably attract animals. He reiterated that large-scale confinement of dogs in shelters often leads to overcrowding and the spread of disease, whereas sterilisation under the ABC rules has shown better long-term results. The bench noted, however, that despite court directions, several states have failed to properly follow these rules.

Senior advocate Krishnan Venugopal, appearing for an animal rights expert, highlighted serious gaps in funding and infrastructure for implementing the ABC programme nationwide. He pointed out that setting up an animal birth control centre in every district would require significant financial investment and coordination among multiple central ministries. Venugopal also underlined shortages of trained veterinarians and specialised personnel needed to carry out sterilisations on a large scale.

Counsel appearing for BJP leader Vijay Goel argued that the ABC rules were originally designed to gradually reduce the stray dog population but said there is no clear legal definition of what constitutes a “violent” dog. Citing a case from Delhi’s Rana Pratap Bagh, he described how a dog allegedly attacked multiple elderly residents even after being briefly removed. He also claimed that a helpline operated for dog-bite victims has received over 20,000 complaints.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had expressed serious concern over the sharp rise in dog bite cases across India and criticised municipal bodies for failing to enforce the ABC rules effectively. The bench observed that continued inaction has resulted in loss of life and noted that stray animals on roads also contribute significantly to traffic accidents.