The Supreme Court on Friday clarified that it would not intervene in allegations of harassment faced by women who feed and care for stray dogs, stating that such grievances fall squarely within the domain of law enforcement. The court said affected individuals can and should initiate criminal proceedings by filing FIRs.
A special three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria was hearing a batch of petitions related to the management of stray dogs, including pleas for modification of earlier directions and stricter enforcement of Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, appearing for dog feeders, raised concerns about “anti-feeder vigilantes” allegedly assaulting, harassing, and even molesting women caregivers under the guise of enforcing the court’s prior orders on stray dogs.
“They are harassing women, they are molesting women, and they are beating women,” she told the court.
In response, Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “Lodge an FIR against them. Who stops you?”
He added that such acts clearly constituted criminal offences, and it was for the police to investigate such allegations. “We can’t take up these individual cases where something is going wrong somewhere. This court is not going to monitor that. That is a law-and-order problem,” the judge said.
When Pavani cited examples from Haryana and Ghaziabad where dog feeders were reportedly assaulted and bouncers hired to remove them, the bench reiterated, “If a criminal offence is committed, an FIR will be registered. There are procedures available to you… Use them.”
The bench firmly declined to entertain allegations of derogatory comments against women made in the context of dog feeding. “Even though we are being criticised in very derogatory language, we don’t react,” said Justice Nath. “We have not given any kind of licence to people to talk like this. If they are talking like this, you take action against them.”
The court also pushed back against attempts to expand the scope of the case. When Pavani raised concerns about unregulated breeding and exotic dog imports, the bench replied, “This has nothing to do with the stray dogs issue.” Justice Mehta added, “Tomorrow, you will say why cheetahs have been imported to Kuno. Why not take care of local breeds? This is too much. Sorry.”
The bench reminded parties that the matter before it was strictly about stray dogs and compliance with the ABC Rules.
During the hearing, the bench also heard senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shadan Farasat. At one point, a reference was made to a dog allegedly seen at AIIMS, to which the bench remarked, “Any dog on the street is bound to have ticks. And a dog with ticks in a hospital—do you understand what disastrous consequences would befall? Don’t try to glorify that there was a dog at AIIMS.”
Justice Mehta stressed the real and present danger posed by stray dogs, especially when videos were shown in court. “There are ‘n’ number of videos on YouTube of dogs attacking children, dogs attacking old people,” he noted.
The Supreme Court is hearing a suo motu case initiated on July 28, 2023, following reports of stray dog attacks, particularly involving children. On November 7, the apex court had passed a significant order directing civic authorities to immediately relocate stray dogs to designated shelters post sterilisation and vaccination. It also directed that such dogs should not be released back in the same location.
The court further ordered the removal of all stray animals, including cattle, from highways and expressways, taking note of fatalities due to road accidents caused by such animals.
On Thursday, the bench clarified that it had never ordered the removal of all dogs from the streets, only that they be managed in accordance with the ABC Rules. The hearing remains inconclusive and will continue on January 13.
