'You don't know what mood the dog is in': Supreme Court says stray dogs in hospitals, schools unsafe

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said nobody is equipped to read a canine’s mind when it is in a “mood to bite or not”, stressing that prevention is better than cure. The observation came while a bench was hearing a batch of petitions related to the stray dogs issue.

"It's just not biting, it's also a threat caused by dogs. Of accidents. How can you identify? Which dog is in what mood in the morning, you don't know," Justice Vikram Nath was quoted as saying by LiveLaw. 

The court flagged dog bite incidents in institutional areas such as sports complexes, attributing them to administrative indifference and a “systemic failure” to secure these premises from preventable hazards.

Justice Sandeep Mehta said: "As far as institutions are concerned, they are not streets. Why do you need dogs in court premises, schools? What are we discussing?" 

Emphasising the need for clear roads and adequate shelters to tackle the menace of stray dogs and cattle, the top court ruled out culling as a solution. It warned the states of strict action for failing to comply with its directions, reiterating that culling is not permitted under existing laws.

Justice Vikram Nath clarified that the court was not creating new laws but ensuring the enforcement of existing Acts and rules, noting that compliance has been poor in several regions. The bench cautioned that it would take a harsh view of states that have failed to respond or act on its directions.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the Animal Welfare Board of India’s standard operating procedure (SOP) contradicts the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules, resulting in systemic violations. He contended that the SOP legitimises overcrowding in shelters, ignores scientific principles of animal welfare, and allows rabies-infected dogs to be housed with healthy ones.

Sibal further submitted that the SOP permits any veterinary hospital to conduct sterilisation and vaccination, in violation of ABC rules that require shelters to meet specific criteria and obtain AWBI certification. He also pointed out that mandatory floor space and enclosure size norms prescribed under the rules were diluted by the SOP.

The bench directed Sibal to place the SOP on record and demonstrate clause-by-clause inconsistencies instead of making broad allegations.

Clarifying that its modified order applies only to institutional areas and not public roads, the Supreme Court questioned why stray dogs should be present inside schools, hospitals or courts, stressing that safety concerns are paramount.

Responding to arguments on managing aggressive dogs, Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked that the only thing left would be to counsel dogs not to bite. Justice Nath added that stray animals also pose serious risks through road accidents.

The hearing came months after the top court in November directed the removal of stray dogs from institutions such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands, and railway stations. At the time, the top court ordered their relocation to designated shelters following due sterilisation and vaccination. 

It also directed that dogs picked up from such places should be released back at the same location.