Stray dogs case in Supreme Court LIVE | ‘Dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs,' observes SC— key updates

The Supreme Court on Thursday continued hearing the case on the management of stray dogs, with the Bench raising concerns over the growing number of dog bite incidents and the failure of municipal authorities to effectively implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules across the country.

A three-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria is hearing the matter, which returned to national focus last year after an earlier order directing the rounding up and sheltering of stray dogs in Delhi triggered protests from animal rights groups. That direction was subsequently modified, with the current Bench emphasising vaccination, sterilisation and release rather than permanent confinement.

During the hearing, the Court made pointed observations on human safety and animal behaviour, noting from experience that fear often provokes aggression. “The dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs. It will always attack when it senses that. We are talking from personal experience,” the Bench said. It added, “Don't nod your heads. If they know you’re scared there is a higher chance they’ll attack you. Even your pet will do it.”

Counsel appearing in the matter repeatedly stressed that the issue was not about eliminating dogs but about enforcing the law in a manner that balances public safety and animal welfare. “We are not suggesting that dogs have to be done away with. But the scheme of the act has to be understood in the right perspective,” one counsel submitted.

Arguments highlighted the distinction between pet dogs and strays, with concerns raised about territorial behaviour, feeding zones and public nuisance. “The basic problem is that dogs are territorial. Every 200-300 metres their territory changes,” counsel argued, warning that poorly planned feeding areas could heighten conflict among dogs and residents alike.

Senior advocate Nakul Dewan called for the constitution of an expert committee, saying the problem could not be solved overnight. “This is not a problem that can be eliminated in a day. We need to decelerate the growth of community dogs,” he said, while emphasising the need for humane solutions. He also pointed to the lack of infrastructure and data across states, noting that effective implementation would only be possible once systems were in place.

On microchipping, Dewan said, “Dogs can be micro-chipped,” prompting the Court to ask whether mandatory microchipping for pet dogs was actually being enforced.

Other senior counsel underlined budgetary constraints and poor compliance by local bodies. One submission noted that only a limited number of animal birth control centres were accredited nationwide, while another argued that sudden removal of dogs could lead to unintended consequences such as a spike in rodent populations.

At one point, the Bench remarked wryly on competing urban challenges, observing, “Tell us how many dogs you want roaming around in hospital corridors?”

The Court indicated that the crux of the matter lay in proper enforcement of the existing ABC framework rather than its dilution or abandonment, as the hearing continues.