The Supreme Court today said it will ask States to pay a “heavy compensation” for dog-bite incidents and hold dog feeders accountable as it flagged its concern over the lack of implementation of norms on stray animals for the past five years.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria said that even dog lovers and feeders will be held “responsible” and “accountable” for dog-bite incidents.
“For every dog bite, death or injury caused to children or elderly, we are going to ask the State Governments to pay heavy compensation, as they did not do anything on implementation of norms in the past five years. Also, responsibility and accountability will be fixed on those who are feeding these stray dogs. If you love these animals so much, then why don’t you take them to your house. Why should these dogs loiter around, bite and scare people?” Justice Nath said.
Justice Mehta concurred with the views of Justice Nath and said, “Who should be held accountable when dogs attack a 9-year-old? The organisation that is feeding them? You want us to shut our eyes to the problem.”
The top court was hearing several petitions seeking modification of its November 7, 2025 order directing the authorities to remove these stray animals from the institutional areas and roads.
The top court said the worst part is that a lawyer from Gujarat was bitten in a park and when civic authorities went to catch that animal, the lawyers, who claimed to be dog lovers, attacked the civic officials.
The top court also lamented that for four days, it has been hearing arguments on the issue and was not allowed to proceed further in the matters by activists and NGOs and was not able to hear the views of the Centre and the states.
“Our request to all the lawyers is to allow us to take to task the Union, the State authorities and other bodies… Allow us to pass an order. We need to spend half a day with the States and Union. To see whether they have a plan of action or not. The problem has multiplied a thousand times. We just want implementation of statutory provision. Allow us to do that. Allow us to work. Allow us to proceed further,” the top court observed during the hearing.
At the outset, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for an NGO, defended the apex court’s November 7, 2025 order dealing with institutional areas, arguing that it was fully justified and supported by statutory rules. He contended that there was no need to constitute any new expert committee since reports of the existing committees were already on record.
Justice Mehta remarked that Datar was “the first who has come to the rescue of the order.”
Datar argued that stray dogs have no legal right to occupy institutional premises or other public spaces to which people have access. He submitted that dogs do not have a right to be brought back to the institutional area because these animals have no right to be in that place at the first instance.
Datar referred to a separate writ petition filed by conservation groups regarding feral dogs in wildlife areas, especially Ladakh. He told the court that reports placed before it showed the presence of around 55,000 free-ranging feral dogs in Ladakh, posing a grave threat to critically endangered species.