Stray dogs case in Supreme Court LIVE: Can't read an animal's mind, says bench as hearing continues—key updates

The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed the hearing on its suo motu case on stray dogs, with Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria comprising the bench.

During its last substantive hearing on 7 November 2025, the apex court had directed state governments and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to ensure the removal of stray dogs from highways across the country.

It had also directed all educational and healthcare institutions, both government and private, to erect fences within 8 weeks to tackle the stray dog threat and prevent dog bites.

With the hearing now underway, here are some key updates.

- 'Can't read a dog's mind': As the hearing continued, the SC bench remarked that it was impossible to predict an animal's behaviour or know whether a dog is in a "mood to bite". It asserted that in matters of public safety, "prevention is better than cure".

- Poor compliance by states: The SC noted that only about 10 states had filed compliance affidavits regarding the implementation of animal birth control and the building of shelter infrastructure, indicating a lack of urgency.

- Systemic failure: The apex court also reiterated its concern over what it called a "systemic failure" to secure sensitive public places, such as schools, hospitals, and railway stations, from the stray dog threat. It referred to its 7 November direction that stray dogs must be removed from these places for safety, and not released back in these locations.

- Massive logistical hurdles and costs: Senior Advocate K K Venugopal, meanwhile, informed the apex court that India has approximately 5.25 crore stray dogs, adding that housing them would require 77,000 shelters. Feeding, meanwhile, would cost an astronomical ₹62 crore daily, he submitted, illustrating the sheer scale of the challenge.

- Community dogs vs stray dogs: During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal called for distinguishing between street dogs and dogs found in institutional areas, referring to the latter as "community dogs" who should be managed under Animal Birth Control Rules (ABC) rather than removing them permanently. Sibal also questioned the feasibility of feeding dogs under current laws, asking who would bear the astronomical costs and the logistical requirements and arguing against mass institutionalization.

- Inflated statistics: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing NGOs in the present case, argued that dog bit statistics were "grossly inflated", and claimed that authorities often count every rabies shot as a separate dog bite case, essentially meaning that a single incident could be counted as 5-7 separate cases.

- Highway safety: The bench also questioned the NHAI and flagged serious concerns regarding stray animals (both dogs and cattle) on India's highways, citing recent accidents and seeking an explanation from the NHAI and states to barricade roads.

- Volume of pleas: The SC also expressed its astonishment at the volume of pleas it had received pertaining to the present case, and noted, "So many applications normally don't even come in cases of humans."

(This is a developing story. Please check back for updates)