India’s long-running debate over stray dogs and public safety has been thrown back into the spotlight after the Supreme Court signalled a sharp shift in its own approach. In its latest hearing, the top court not only questioned the unpredictability of street dogs but also moved away from an earlier position that allowed sterilised animals to be released back into neighbourhoods, marking what many now see as a clear judicial U-turn.
The matter was heard by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria, which examined petitions related to stray dogs and cattle roaming public spaces and highways. The bench highlighted the growing risks posed by animals on streets and expressways, stressing that daily commuters cannot be expected to assess how a stray dog might behave at any given moment.
‘You Don’t Know What Mood the Dog Is In’
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that humane treatment of animals could prevent attacks. “If you invade their space, they will attack,” LiveLaw quoted Sibal as saying, while pressing for a coexistence-based approach.
Justice Vikram Nath responded by drawing attention to the unpredictability of street dogs, observing that the problem was not limited to bite incidents alone but also included the broader threat perception they create. “How can you identify? Which dog is in what mood in the morning, you don’t know,” he said, questioning how ordinary citizens were expected to make such judgments.
Sibal suggested that problematic dogs could be handled through structured intervention, proposing that authorities could pick up unruly animals, treat them, and send them back. “If there’s an unruly dog, you call a centre. It will be sterilised and released back,” he submitted.
From ‘Release Back’ to ‘No Return’
This is where the court’s latest position marks a significant departure from its own earlier clarification.
In a previous hearing, the Supreme Court had allowed sterilised and immunised dogs to be returned to the very localities from where they were picked up. The bench had clarified that such a release could take place unless a dog was infected with rabies, suspected of rabies, or displayed aggressive behaviour. This effectively endorsed the practice of treating and then returning dogs to residential areas.
However, in its latest ruling, the court has now made it clear that dogs once removed should not be released back into the areas from which they were picked up. It also directed authorities to ensure that all cattle and other stray animals are cleared from state highways, national highways and expressways, signalling a sharper pivot towards physical separation of stray animals from public spaces.
Welfare Groups Flag Harassment & Cruelty
The hearing also witnessed strong submissions from animal welfare organisations. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves told the court that people who feed stray dogs, particularly women, were being harassed and attacked.
“Women ferociously attacked, beaten. Protect us. Dogs are sentient beings. Dogs have been poisoned, beaten, suffocated,” he said.
Gonsalves further made disturbing claims about cruelty towards animals, stating that the raping of dogs by human beings is a common practice. “Cruelty to dogs removed as an offence! Most Indians feel safer with stray dogs. At night, guard will sleep, dog will be awake,” LiveLaw quoted him as saying.
With the Supreme Court now drawing a harder line on the return of stray dogs to public areas, the evolving stance has reignited a nationwide conversation on whether Indian cities should continue accommodating street dogs after sterilisation or move decisively towards shelter-based systems driven by public safety concerns.
