’It’s clearly a failure on their part’: Supreme Court says it will impose heavy compensation on states for every stray dog bite death

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it may order “heavy compensation” to be paid by authorities in case of deaths due to stray dog bites, and also fix the accountability and liability of those feeding them.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria said authorities had not done anything for 75 years while hearing the suo motu case related to the stray dogs issue.

“It’s clearly a failure on their part, for 75 years…And they have created a worse situation. That’s what we want to put to the states to take them to task for this. For every dog bite, and every death or injury caused to a child or old or feeble person, we are likely to fix heavy compensation to be paid by the state, for not having done anything for the last 75 years,” said Justice Nath.

“And also, liability and accountability on all those who claim that they are feeding dogs and want to protect them. Protect them, fair enough, you take them home. Keep them inside your campus, your house. Why should dogs be loitering around everywhere and frightening people, biting them, causing deaths, chasing?” Justice Nath asked.

The remarks came as Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing some animal shelters, drew the court’s attention to parliamentary debates from the 1950s in which the issue of stray dogs was raised in the House.

Terming the stray dogs issue a “societal challenge,” she said, “the most effective remedy is to ensure that the Animal Birth Control Rules are implemented in letter and spirit”.

Referring to the government’s reply in Parliament in the 1980s on stray dogs in Delhi, she said the minister had stated that “NDMC has discontinued the practice of killing stray dogs, but this has not led to any significant increase in their numbers as the practice of sterilising stray dogs has been introduced.”

“So, this is the legislator himself saying killing does not reduce numbers, sterilisation does. Rules and the statute are a culmination of the legislature recognising approaches that did not work, killing dogs, and approaches that did work — sterilisation and humane treatment,” Guruswamy said.

She also said data on animal bite data from 2019 to 2022 shows “staggering diminishing in the numbers post immunisation and sterilisation.” “If the regulators did their job a little better, we would not have had the catastrophe we are living with now. Killing and capture work on the same principle. Therefore, removing dogs from there does not work as well as sterilisation and vaccinating the dogs does.”

To Guruswamy’s remark that the issue is an emotional one, Justice Mehta said emotions so far appeared to be “only for dogs.”

Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, appearing for Humane Foundation for People and Animals, backed the SC’s November 7, 2025, order, which directed that stray dogs roaming around in institutional areas be removed to shelters.

Datar pointed out that, in the context of a public highway, the Madras High Court held that the public’s right is limited to passing and re-passing; any use for any other purpose will amount to trespass.

Countering submissions by animal lover groups, Datar said, “On the basis of the above definition and case laws, it is submitted that the directions from paras 12 -13 in the order dated 07.11.25 do not violate ABC Rules 2023. The directions are restricted to institutional areas which are not streets as contemplated by the Act”.

“Similarly, the requirements of rereleasing street dogs in the same locality will only mean re-releasing them on the same street on which they were captured. A college or hospital or even a bus stand or railway station cannot be termed as a street under section 2(i) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.”

“There is enough evidence to establish that the population of the stray/community dogs has reached alarming proportions, and the practice of sterilising them and putting them back on the streets has made matters worse. There is no point in blaming the lack of implementation, as it is virtually impossible to capture over 50 million stray/community dogs, sterilise them and put them back on the streets. It would be impossible to achieve the objective of ABC Rules by the process of sterilising and releasing them where they were picked up from.”

He also sought to highlight the destruction of wildlife “caused by the free-ranging dogs in Ladakh.”

Justice Mehta then said, “These dogs carry a certain virus. So, if they are allowed in the forest, there have been instances in Ranthambore where tigers that attacked dogs were infected with a disease called distemper, which is incurable. The animal is bound to die.”

“Who will bear responsibility when a stray dog attacks someone? A stray dog can’t be in the possession of anyone. If you want [a pet], take license.”

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand said there are various arguments on the issue, one of which is “maybe let’s do away with dogs as a whole, but we can’t do that.”

Justice Nath said, “Maybe when a stage comes, it may have to be done. We don’t know.”

Anand said, “Whatever Your Lords consider, it has to be as per some proper policy. Can’t be ad-hoc.”

With a large number of lawyers lined up to argue on behalf of animal rights groups, the bench also expressed its exasperation, and urged them to let it complete the hearing and pass orders.

“Allow us to take to task the Union, state authorities, corporations, and local bodies so that what started in the 1950s, as you are just reading out, we can at least now put that into motion and get things better. But nobody is allowing us to pass an order. This is the fourth day we are hearing this,” Justice Nath said as Guruswamy was making her submissions.

“We need to spend half a day with the states and the Union, calling upon them to answer what they have done, why they have not done and what is their plan of action. Do they have a plan of action? They have not done anything. The problem has multiplied 1000 times, a million times… We just want the implementation of these statutory provisions….”