No One Knows Which Dog Is In What Mood, Says Supreme Court On Stray Animals

The Supreme Court on Wednesday flagged the growing danger posed by stray animals on roads, observing that “no one knows which dog is in what mood,” and said people were dying not only due to dog bites but also in road accidents caused by roaming animals.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria made the remarks while hearing pleas seeking modification of its November 7 order directing the immediate relocation of stray dogs from institutional areas. The court said the fresh hearing was being conducted after animal activists and lawyers claimed they were not adequately heard earlier.

“The roads should be clear of dogs and stray animals. It is not only dog bites, but the roaming of stray animals on roads that is proving dangerous and causing accidents,” the Bench said, stressing that civic bodies must strictly implement existing rules, guidelines and standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Justice Mehta highlighted the seriousness of the issue, noting that two judges of the Rajasthan High Court had met with accidents in the past 20 days due to stray animals, with one still suffering from spinal injuries. “It’s a serious issue,” he said.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioners seeking modification of the order, argued that mass capturing of dogs was not the solution. He urged the court to adopt a scientific and globally accepted approach such as CSVR (capture, sterilise, vaccinate and release) to manage stray dog populations and gradually reduce human-animal conflict.

Justice Nath observed that “prevention is always better than cure” and clarified that the court’s earlier order was limited to removing stray dogs from institutional areas without interfering with existing laws. The Bench reiterated that it was only seeking strict enforcement of rules and SOPs by States and civic authorities.

Expressing dissatisfaction over compliance, the court warned that it would take a strict view of States that failed to implement its directions. “Some States have not responded. We will be very harsh with those States,” the Bench said.

The court also acknowledged submissions that dog attacks were continuing, noting that both children and adults were being bitten and, in some cases, losing their lives.

Amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal informed the court that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had prepared an SOP and identified around 1,400 km of highways as vulnerable stretches. However, he said the NHAI had indicated that responsibility for action after identification lay with the respective State governments.