The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued its close examination of the nationwide stray dog issue, expressing serious concerns over public safety and the glaring lack of action by state authorities. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria, resumed hearings on its suo motu case, scrutinising compliance with its previous orders aimed at curbing the threat.
Court Flags Systemic Failure and Poor State Response
The apex court did not mince words in pointing out a "systemic failure" to protect sensitive public spaces like schools, hospitals, and railway stations from stray dogs. It reiterated its directive from 7 November 2025, which mandated the removal of strays from these areas for safety, stressing that the animals should not be released back at the same spots.
Highlighting a significant lack of urgency, the bench noted that only around 10 states had filed compliance affidavits regarding the implementation of Animal Birth Control (ABC) programs and the construction of shelter infrastructure. This poor response from states underscores the challenges in tackling the issue on the ground.
The Staggering Scale of the Challenge Revealed
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate K K Venugopal presented figures that laid bare the monumental scale of the problem. He informed the court that India has an estimated 5.25 crore (52.5 million) stray dogs. Addressing this population humanely would require the construction of approximately 77,000 animal shelters.
Furthermore, the financial burden is astronomical. Venugopal submitted that merely feeding this massive population would cost a staggering ₹62 crore every single day, illustrating the near-impossible logistical and economic hurdles involved in large-scale institutionalisation.
Debates on Definitions, Statistics, and Highway Dangers
The hearing also saw nuanced legal arguments from various sides. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal called for a distinction between general street dogs and "community dogs" found in institutional areas, arguing the latter should be managed under ABC Rules rather than permanently removed. He also questioned the practicality and cost of mass feeding.
Representing NGOs, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves contended that official dog bite statistics are "grossly inflated". He claimed authorities often count each anti-rabies injection as a separate bite case, potentially turning one incident into 5-7 recorded cases.
The bench also turned its focus to road safety, flagging serious concerns about stray animals, including dogs and cattle, on national highways. It sought explanations from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and state governments regarding recent accidents and measures to barricade roads effectively.
"Prevention is Better than Cure": A Court's Pragmatic Stance
Emphasising a pragmatic approach to public safety, the Supreme Court bench observed that it is impossible to predict an animal's behaviour or know "if a dog is in a mood to bite." In such matters, the court asserted, the principle of "prevention is better than cure" must prevail.
The judges also expressed astonishment at the sheer volume of petitions and applications filed in this case, remarking that "So many applications normally don't even come in cases of humans," highlighting the intense public and legal engagement with the issue.
With the hearing ongoing, the Supreme Court continues to balance concerns for animal welfare with the fundamental right of citizens to safety in public spaces, pushing for actionable solutions from responsible authorities.
