Stray dogs case: Supreme Court flags videos of attacks on children, elderly

The Supreme Court on Friday (January 9) said that there are several videos spread across online platforms of stray dogs attacking children and the elderly.

The remarks were made by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria in response to a statement by senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao representing a dog rights organisation, Karan Puri Foundation.

"If your lordships could see some videos that I have annexed," said appearing for the organisation, a registered society taking care of street dogs at their own expense, which functions in various parts of Delhi.

"There are 'n' number of videos on YouTube where dogs are attacking children and old people. We don’t want a competition here," stated the bench as quoted by the Bar and Bench.

Ladakh stray dogs issue

During the previous hearing, the Court had directed counsel to be ready to address a newspaper report published in the Times of India on December 29, titled “On the roof of the world, feral dogs hunt down Ladakh’s rare species.” The matter was taken up again on Friday in continuation of those directions.

Also Read: Supreme Court flags rising dog bite cases, slams ABC rule failure

The report referred to by the Court described the growing presence of feral dogs in Ladakh, attributing the phenomenon to increased tourism, heightened military activity and the accumulation of unmanaged waste in the region’s cold desert ecosystem.

The report further stated that the dogs, which are a by-product of these developments, have begun preying on endangered wildlife and have also been involved in attacks on people.

On Friday, senior advocate Krishnan Venugopal addressed the Court on the Ladakh issue and said, “In relation to the question of Ladakh, my client was also part of the issue. I have handed over a note on this aspect.”

‘Women feeding dogs being targeted’

Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, appearing for parties supporting the protection of dogs, raised concerns about the treatment of women who feed stray animals. She submitted that such women were being targeted and intimidated.

Also Read: SC notes surge in stray dog pleas, says human cases see fewer filings

“I want to highlight the plight of women feeders and caregivers. Under the garb of earlier orders, there are anti-feeder vigilantes. They are beating women, harassing women, the authorities are keeping silent on it,” she said.

Pavani also referred to a specific incident from South India in which, she alleged, vigilantes forcibly entered the residence of a woman who fed dogs.

In response, the Court said, “File an FIR then if they are molesting women.”

‘Don’t create noise about this here’

When Pavani stated that complaints were not being acted upon, saying, “FIRs are not being registered,” the Bench responded sharply, “Approach the High Court, don’t create noise about this here.”

Also Read: AAP, BJP spar over claim that Delhi teachers were roped in for stray dog duties

Continuing her submissions, Pavani alleged that abusive and derogatory comments were being made against women involved in feeding dogs. “There are derogatory remarks made against women. It goes to the extent of saying women are sleeping with dogs for their satisfaction!” she contended.

The Bench replied, “You file a petition. If someone is saying this, that’s wrong.”

Returning to the issue of feral dogs in Ladakh, Pavani referred to the contents of the newspaper report and submitted, “In the Ladakh article, the man himself says that the problem is man-made for food wastage etc.”

‘Systematic failure by the state’

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, also addressing the Court, argued that the proliferation of stray dogs was the result of systemic failure by the State. “This is a matter where the State has failed on its statutory duty to balance public safety and animal welfare. The problem on the ground is dogs have become a menace at some level,” he said.

Farasat further pressed for the effective enforcement of Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, stating that States could not abandon their statutory obligations. Emphasising coordination between State governments and municipal authorities, he said, “State wants to jettison ABC Rules. They can’t do that under the law… So they have to work together,” while urging the Court to direct States to address resource constraints.