New Delhi, Jan 7: Highlighting widespread non-compliance of rules and directions by civic bodies across the country, the Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that people are dying not only due to dog bites but also because of road accidents caused by stray animals wandering on highways and roads.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria heard arguments from both dog lovers seeking modification of earlier court orders and parties demanding stringent compliance with the apex court’s directions. The bench clarified it is conducting the hearing after several lawyers and animal activists claimed they were not adequately heard before the court’s November 7 order.
“The roads should be clear of dogs and stray animals. It is not only the dog bites but also the roaming of stray animals on roads that are proving dangerous and causing accidents. No one knows which dog is in what mood in the morning. Civic bodies have to implement the rules, modules and directions strictly,” the bench observed.
Justice Mehta underscored the gravity of the situation by pointing out that two Rajasthan High Court judges have suffered accidents in the last 20 days due to stray animals on roads, with one judge still recovering from serious spinal injuries. “It’s a serious issue,” he told the lawyers appearing in the matter.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing petitioners seeking modification of the court’s earlier order, argued that the solution lies not in capturing all dogs indiscriminately but in adopting a scientific formula recognized globally for reducing animal-human conflict.
Sibal submitted that the court should adopt the CSVR model—Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate and Release—for managing and controlling the stray dog population, which would gradually reduce dog bite incidents over time.
“Prevention is always better than cure,” Justice Nath responded, noting that the court’s directive was primarily focused on removing stray dogs from institutional areas and had not interfered with existing rules and regulations.
The bench emphasized that its primary objective is ensuring strict enforcement of existing rules, regulations, modules and standard operating procedures (SOPs) by states and civic bodies across the country.
“Some states have not responded to compliance with our orders and implementation of the arguments. We will be very harsh with those states. All the rules, regulations and SOPs need to be followed,” the top court warned.
When counsels appearing for different parties submitted that dog attacks continue to occur with alarming frequency, the bench acknowledged understanding that both children and adults are being bitten and losing their lives.
At the outset, senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appointed as amicus curiae in the matter, informed the court that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has prepared a standard operating procedure to implement the court’s order.
“They have identified 1,400 km of road as a vulnerable stretch. However, after detection, the NHAI says that the state governments have to take care of it,” Agarwal submitted.
The bench suggested fencing roads and expressways as a measure to prevent stray animals from entering these critical transportation arteries.
Agarwal further submitted that states including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Punjab have yet to file compliance affidavits, while some states have submitted what he described as “very disappointing” affidavits. Justice Nath assured that the court would deal appropriately with those non-compliant states.
Elaborating on his submissions, Sibal argued that the response to the stray dog issue should reflect a mature and responsible society’s approach to the problem.
“First of all, this is not an adversarial issue and we are here as dog lovers. If one tiger is a man-eater, we don’t kill all tigers. We must make sure that sterilisation takes place and the population must come down. There is a process for that,” Sibal submitted, citing the success of the CSVR model in bringing down the dog population in Lucknow to nearly zero.
He cautioned that if dogs with rabies and those without the disease are housed in the same shelter, all of them would contract rabies, defeating the purpose of intervention.
The bench, in a lighter vein, remarked, “The only thing missing is providing counselling to the dogs as well so that he doesn’t bite when released back.”
Similar arguments were advanced by senior advocates Colin Gonsalves, Anand Grover, C U Singh and several animal rights activists appearing in person before the court.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, representing NALSAR University Hyderabad, also presented arguments highlighting data on the grossly inadequate number of shelters needed for housing stray dogs across the country.
Taking note of the “alarming rise” in dog bite incidents within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the Supreme Court had on November 7, 2024, directed the immediate relocation of stray canines to designated shelters after proper sterilisation and vaccination.
Significantly, the bench had also ordered that stray dogs removed from such locations shall not be released back to the places from where they were picked up. Additionally, it directed authorities to ensure removal of all cattle and other stray animals from state highways, national highways and expressways.
The court had observed that the recurrence of dog bite incidents within institutional areas, including sports complexes, reflected not only administrative apathy but also a “systemic failure” to secure these premises from preventable hazards.
The top court is hearing a suo motu case initiated on July 28 last year following a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
The arguments remained inconclusive on Wednesday and will continue on Thursday.
