The Supreme Court on Tuesday took a strong stance while hearing a plea alleging harassment faced by a Noida resident for feeding community dogs, asking the petitioner why they couldn’t feed the animals inside their own home instead of public spaces.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, expressing concern over the increasing incidents of stray dog attacks, remarked, “We should leave every lane, every road open for these large-hearted people? There is all space for these animals, no space for humans. Why don’t you feed them in your own house? Nobody is stopping you.”
The plea challenged a March 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court, in which the petitioner had sought protection against alleged harassment and implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 — specifically Rule 20. The rule mandates resident welfare associations, apartment owners’ associations, or local bodies to arrange designated feeding spots for community animals within their premises.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that while such feeding points were being created in Greater Noida, no such arrangements existed in Noida. He requested the court to consider setting up feeding areas away from pedestrian routes. The bench, however, remained skeptical of the practical impact of such suggestions.
“You go on cycling in the morning?” the bench asked. “Try doing it and see what happens.” When the counsel responded that he goes for morning walks and sees many dogs, the bench pointed out the risk to morning walkers and two-wheeler riders, noting, “Cycle riders and two-wheelers are at greater risk.”
The court tagged the plea with another pending petition involving similar issues and refrained from issuing immediate directions.
Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had acknowledged the importance of protecting stray animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, but stressed the need for a balanced approach. “While protection of street dogs would be warranted… authorities will have to bear in mind the concern of common man, such that their movement on streets are not hampered by attacks by these street dogs,” the high court had observed.
In view of recent incidents involving dog attacks, some of which led to fatalities and serious injuries, the high court directed authorities to show “due sensitivity” towards both the safety of humans and welfare of animals. It disposed of the matter with instructions to ensure the concerns raised were addressed appropriately.
The Supreme Court’s comments highlight the growing legal and civic tension surrounding the issue of stray animals in urban spaces — a matter increasingly under public and judicial scrutiny.
