New Delhi — The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it may hold states and Union Territories financially liable for the increasing number of dog-bite incidents across the country. The court expressed concern over the authorities’ inaction in addressing the stray dog menace and signaled the possibility of imposing monetary compensation on them.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria emphasized that those advocating for animal rights could adopt stray dogs after obtaining necessary licenses. Justice Nath remarked that the court might fix significant compensation for victims of dog bites, injuries, or deaths caused to children and the elderly due to the authorities’ failure to act.
“For every dog bite, death, or injury, we are likely to fix heavy compensation by the State for neglect. Liability and accountability will be fixed on those claiming to feed dogs. Why should dogs be littering around and scaring people?” Justice Nath stated, addressing senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared for animal activists.
The court urged the authorities to respond and take responsibility, criticizing the inaction that has led to a thousand-fold increase in the problem. The observations came during the fourth day of hearings on the court-ordered measures to curb stray animals, especially dogs, amid rising dog-bite cases and rabies-related fatalities.
Justice Mehta expressed frustration, noting that the ongoing four-day hearing was the longest he had participated in during his three-decade judicial career. Guruswamy argued that culling stray dogs was ineffective and highlighted the importance of sterilisation and proper management of shelters, criticizing under-utilization of funds allocated for animal welfare.
Senior advocate Percival Billimoria, representing animal activists, emphasized that the overpopulation of street dogs could be addressed through effective Animal Birth Control (ABC) programs, citing a PIB report advocating for such measures as the scientific solution.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing victims of dog bites, defended the November 7 order and suggested extending it to airports and other public places. He also raised concerns over feral dogs in wildlife areas, particularly in Ladakh, where reports indicate around 55,000 feral dogs pose a threat to endangered species.
Datar argued that stray dogs do not have the right to inhabit residential areas if humans do not permit it, especially when their presence hampers daily life. He questioned whether the preferences of the majority or individuals should prevail in deciding the presence of stray dogs.
Vikas Singh, representing an animal welfare trust, claimed that the number of dog-bite fatalities was exaggerated and pointed out that many lives were lost annually due to snake bites, emphasizing the ecological role of dogs in controlling rodents.
Pinky Anand urged for compassionate treatment of dogs, drawing parallels with the eradication of tuberculosis, and warned that without proper relocation and management, more ferocious dogs would emerge.
The court adjourned the matter, with arguments scheduled to resume on January 20. Previously, on November 7, the Supreme Court directed the relocation of stray dogs to shelters, mandatory sterilisation and vaccination, and the removal of stray cattle from highways to curb the problem.
