Will dog lovers take responsibility for bites? Supreme Court asks in verdict
The Supreme Court held that the assertion of a right to protect or maintain stray dogs cannot be separated from the responsibility of ensuring that such actions do not endanger human safety.
Supreme Court dismissed the pleas challenging the standard operating procedure (SOP) to manage the stray dog menace. Supreme Court stray dogs verdict: While delivering its judgment on the stray dogs issue, the Supreme Court has observed that concerns relating to the protection and feeding of stray dogs in public and institutional spaces must also be accompanied by accountability for the consequences arising from their presence.
The court questioned whether animal welfare organisations, associations or individuals advocating for the continued presence of dogs in public areas would be willing to accept tortious liability for injuries, harm or damage caused by such dogs to members of the public.
“While considerable emphasis has been placed on the protection, feeding and continued presence of community dogs in public and institutional spaces, a pertinent question arises as to whether such individuals, organisations and associations would be willing to assume corresponding legal responsibility for the consequences arising therefrom,” the court observed in its order dated May 19.
It noted that the assertion of a right to protect or maintain stray dogs in public spaces cannot be separated from the responsibility of ensuring that such actions do not endanger human safety.
“The issue assumes significance inasmuch as the assertion of a right to protect or maintain stray dogs in public spaces cannot be divorced from the obligation to ensure that such actions do not result in harm to others,” the Supreme Court noted.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria raised a ‘pertinent’ question whether dog lovers will take responsibility in case of dog bites.
Feeding strays in institutional premises
- The Supreme Court further highlighted that the issue assumes greater significance in educational institutions and other institutional premises where animal welfare groups or student bodies are engaged in feeding and caring for stray dogs within campuses.
- Stressing that institutional spaces require a heightened standard of safety, the court observed that any activity potentially compromising such safety must be accompanied by a corresponding assumption of responsibility.
- It also noted the absence of a clear framework for fixing liability.
- “The absence of any clear framework for fixing such liability further underscores the imbalance between the assertion of rights in favour of stray animals and the lack of accountability for the consequences of their presence in sensitive environments,” the court remarked.
- National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad), had contended before the court that the university had institutionalised humane treatment of stray dogs on campus through an Animal Law Centre and had sensitised students and staff towards stray animals.
- It was argued before the court that similar social experiments could be undertaken in other educational institutions in furtherance of the spirit of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
- The court observed that if the animal law centre wished to continue carrying out the Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release (CSVR) model within the NALSAR campus, it could do so on an experimental basis, provided it furnished an undertaking to the Vice Chancellor accepting tortious liability in the event of any stray dog bite incident within the campus.
- “This Court is of the considered opinion that any framework concerning the management and protection of stray dogs must necessarily be accompanied by clearly defined principles of accountability,” the court noted.
- It further noted that the assertion of rights or interests in favour of such animals cannot operate in isolation, divorced from the corresponding responsibility to safeguard human life and safety.
Supreme Court dismisses challenge to SOP
Underscoring the right to live with dignity under Article 21 includes the right to move freely in public spaces without the fear of dog bites, the Supreme Court, on May 19 dismissed the pleas challenging the standard operating procedure (SOP) to manage the stray dog menace, including that canines picked up from a public area should not be returned to the same place after sterilisation/ immunisation.
The applications had challenged the November 27, 2025, SOP issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) for stray dog management.
“The right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack, or exposure to life-threatening events such as dog bites in public areas”, the verdict highlighted.
Share
