The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing a self-initiated case on the worsening stray dog situation across India, acknowledging growing public concern over safety, health, and daily disruption caused by unmanaged canine populations in cities and residential areas.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria listened to multiple submissions highlighting how the issue has moved beyond animal welfare into a serious civic and public order challenge.
During the hearing, a lawyer shared his personal experience, telling the court that his neighbourhood has been overtaken by stray dogs that bark and chase each other throughout the night. He said the constant noise has severely affected his sleep and disturbed his children’s studies. Despite repeated complaints to civic authorities, he claimed no meaningful action was taken.
The counsel pointed out a conflict between existing laws. He argued that while the Animal Birth Control rules focus mainly on vaccination and sterilisation before releasing dogs back into the same locality, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita allows authorities to remove animals if they create a public nuisance. According to him, this legal overlap has led to inaction on the ground.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, addressing the court, said sterilisation is a scientifically accepted method to control stray dog populations and reduce aggression. However, he emphasised that the real failure lies in poor execution by municipal bodies in several cities.
Bhushan proposed a transparent and accountable system, suggesting an online reporting mechanism where citizens could flag dogs that appear unsterilised. These reports, he said, should be officially tracked and assigned to responsible agencies for time-bound action. He also cautioned that overcrowding dogs in shelters could worsen their behaviour, making them more aggressive instead of calmer.
He urged the court to consider forming an expert committee to study the issue holistically, balancing public safety with animal welfare.
Towards the end of the hearing, the Supreme Court reflected on a broader concern, observing that while many arguments are often made from the perspective of animal lovers, the voices of ordinary citizens affected by the problem are rarely represented.
The bench also expressed strong displeasure over public comments made by former Union Minister Menaka Gandhi criticising the court’s earlier directions on stray dogs. The judges said such remarks bordered on contempt of court but clarified that no contempt action was being initiated, citing judicial restraint.
The court further questioned what concrete steps were taken during Gandhi’s tenure as a minister to secure funds or policy support to address the stray dog problem.
