Stray dogs case: Supreme Court warns Centre, states of heavy compensation for bite victims
The hearing resumed this week after detailed arguments last week, when the court clarified it was not calling for the removal of all street dogs but for the strict enforcement of existing rules
- Jan 13, 2026,
- Updated Jan 13, 2026 3:05 PM IST
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday warned the Centre and state governments that it could impose heavy compensation for every stray dog bite and related deaths, slamming authorities for “failing miserably” to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules. The court also said dog feeders must be held liable for attacks, stressing that the impact of dog bites is lifelong.
“We are going to take the Union government and state governments to task. The issue has been ongoing forever… It is because of the Union and state governments that the problem has multiplied 1000 times. Complete failure on the part of the Union and state governments. For every man, woman and child who has lost their lives to a dog bite, we will impose heavy compensation on the government responsible,” said the bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria.
Turning to dog feeders, the bench said, “And also liability to dog feeders. You take them to your house, keep them. Why should they be allowed to roam around, biting, chasing? The effect of a dog bite is lifelong.”
The hearing resumed this week after detailed arguments last week, when the court clarified it was not calling for the removal of all street dogs but for strict enforcement of existing rules.
Reiterating that stance, the bench urged lawyers to allow implementation. “Our request to all the lawyers is to allow us to take to task the union, the state authorities and other bodies to put what happened in 1957 into effect… We just want implementation of statutory provision… This has become a public platform rather than a court proceeding,” the court said.
The bench also criticised “so-called dog lovers,” citing an incident in Gujarat. “When a lawyer was bitten in Gujarat, and when the municipal corporation people went to capture the dogs, they were thrashed. By lawyers! By these so-called dog lovers,” it observed.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued that the court’s November 7 order should apply to airports, parks and courts. “The impression is that once a street dog is placed in an area like that, it gets some kind of special protection… This needs to extends to public parks and courts too,” he said.
Datar also questioned the scope of ABC rules, saying, “ABC rules are only for birth control… ABC rules will not apply to feral dogs,” and argued that street dogs have no permanent right to remain in gated communities.
Animal welfare groups countered that authorities lack funds for permanent shelters and said removal would not solve the problem. When one lawyer suggested incentivising dog adoption, Justice Sandeep Mehta asked why adoption of orphans could not be incentivised in the same way.
The hearing will resume on January 20.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday warned the Centre and state governments that it could impose heavy compensation for every stray dog bite and related deaths, slamming authorities for “failing miserably” to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules. The court also said dog feeders must be held liable for attacks, stressing that the impact of dog bites is lifelong.
“We are going to take the Union government and state governments to task. The issue has been ongoing forever… It is because of the Union and state governments that the problem has multiplied 1000 times. Complete failure on the part of the Union and state governments. For every man, woman and child who has lost their lives to a dog bite, we will impose heavy compensation on the government responsible,” said the bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria.
Turning to dog feeders, the bench said, “And also liability to dog feeders. You take them to your house, keep them. Why should they be allowed to roam around, biting, chasing? The effect of a dog bite is lifelong.”
The hearing resumed this week after detailed arguments last week, when the court clarified it was not calling for the removal of all street dogs but for strict enforcement of existing rules.
Reiterating that stance, the bench urged lawyers to allow implementation. “Our request to all the lawyers is to allow us to take to task the union, the state authorities and other bodies to put what happened in 1957 into effect… We just want implementation of statutory provision… This has become a public platform rather than a court proceeding,” the court said.
The bench also criticised “so-called dog lovers,” citing an incident in Gujarat. “When a lawyer was bitten in Gujarat, and when the municipal corporation people went to capture the dogs, they were thrashed. By lawyers! By these so-called dog lovers,” it observed.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued that the court’s November 7 order should apply to airports, parks and courts. “The impression is that once a street dog is placed in an area like that, it gets some kind of special protection… This needs to extends to public parks and courts too,” he said.
Datar also questioned the scope of ABC rules, saying, “ABC rules are only for birth control… ABC rules will not apply to feral dogs,” and argued that street dogs have no permanent right to remain in gated communities.
Animal welfare groups countered that authorities lack funds for permanent shelters and said removal would not solve the problem. When one lawyer suggested incentivising dog adoption, Justice Sandeep Mehta asked why adoption of orphans could not be incentivised in the same way.
The hearing will resume on January 20.