The Supreme Court on Friday said that there are scores of videos on online platforms like YouTube which show stray dogs attacking children and old people. "There are 'n' number of videos on YouTube where dogs are attacking children and old people. We don’t want a competition here," the SC Bench remarked.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria made the observation in response to a statement by Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao appearing for a dog rights organisation. "If your lordships could see some videos that I have annexed," Rao said on behalf of Karan Puri foundation, a registered society taking care of street dogs at their own expense in various parts of Delhi.
The stray dog matter gained national attention last year after a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs, drawing protests from animal rights groups. That order was later modified by the present three-judge Bench. It mandated vaccination and release of sterilised dogs instead of permanent sheltering.
In November 2025, the Court directed the State governments and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to ensure removal of stray animals from the highways across India.The Court had also ordered that government and private educational and health institutions should be fenced within 8 weeks to tackle the stray dog menace and prevent stray dog bites.
When the case was taken up for hearing today, Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal said,"In relation to the question of Ladakh, my client was also part of the issue. Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, appearing for pro-dog parties, said that women who feed stray dogs were being harassed by people.
"I want to highlight the plight of women feeders and caregivers. Under the garb of earlier orders, there are anti-feeder vigilantes. They are beating women, harassing women, the authorities are keeping silent on it," she said. "Approach the High Court, don’t create noise about this here," the Bench shot back."There are derogatory remarks made against women. it goes to the extent of saying women are sleeping with dogs for their satisfaction!" Pavani contended."You file a petition. If someone is saying this that’s wrong," the Bench said.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan also proceeded to offer suggestions to deal with the stray dog problem. Senior Advocate Pragyan Pradip Sharma, appearing for Sharmila Tagore, batted for methods like colour coding collars to identify aggressive dogs from non-aggressive ones.However, the Bench was not impressed.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for an animal rights body, said that the scope of judicial intervention in the case is limited since the law and rules are near exhaustive."I appear for a body called ACGS (All Creatures Great and Small). This is now not entirely a matter about dog and humans. It’s about certain constitutional principles. But Your lordships are bound by the intention of the legislature," he said.
"You can bluntly say Your Lordships are helpless also," the Bench said, not hiding its sarcasm.He batted for taking into account expert opinion before passing orders in the stray dogs matter too.Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao also batted for the rights of stray dogs and asked whether the interim orders passed by the Court earlier were proportionate to what was required. The case will be taken up for next hearing on January 13.
Follow us
