Supreme Court warns of heavy compensation for dog bites, signals accountability for feeders and states

The Supreme Court on Tuesday signalled that it may impose “heavy compensation” on states for every dog bite and death caused by stray dogs, while also fixing accountability on individuals or groups feeding dogs if attacks result in serious or lifelong consequences. The remarks came amid the court’s growing concern over rising dog bite incidents and decades-long failure by authorities to implement existing animal welfare and population control laws.

A bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria questioned why stray dogs should be allowed to roam freely in all areas, observing that those who feed them must also assume responsibility for their conduct. The court suggested that feeders should keep dogs within their homes or premises instead of allowing them to loiter in public spaces, frightening and attacking people. Emphasising the severity of the issue, the bench noted that the impact of a dog bite can be lifelong, especially for children and the elderly.

Reproaching states and Union territories, the bench said decades of inaction had allowed the stray dog problem to multiply exponentially. It warned that non-implementation of statutory provisions could now attract financial consequences. The judges stressed that the court was not questioning the validity of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, but was deeply concerned about their chronic non-enforcement.

During the hearing, the court raised pointed questions about accountability, asking whether organisations feeding dogs should be held liable when attacks lead to severe injuries or deaths. It also expressed frustration over prolonged arguments, stating that the proceedings were beginning to resemble a public debate rather than a judicial hearing.

Senior advocates appearing for animal welfare groups argued that sterilisation, not culling, was the only effective solution and that cruelty or indiscriminate removal of dogs was impermissible under law. Others highlighted the threat posed by free-ranging dogs in wildlife areas and high-risk zones such as airports, courts and institutional campuses.

The court reiterated that it has not ordered the killing of stray dogs and that its directions are limited to removing strays from high-risk areas in the interest of public safety under Article 21. The matter will be heard next on January 15.