Supreme Court Holds Authorities and Dog Feeders Accountable for Stray Dog Attacks

The Supreme Court has taken a firm stance on the issue of stray dogs, declaring that both civic authorities and individuals who feed these animals can be held accountable for any injuries or fatalities resulting from dog attacks. The court emphasized the need for responsible management of stray dogs, including proper fencing of government properties and the establishment of designated feeding zones. This ruling comes amid growing concerns about the safety of the public, particularly vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly. The court's decision highlights the balance between animal rights and public safety, sparking discussions on how best to manage stray dog populations in urban areas.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jan 13, 2026, 17:19 IST

Supreme Court's Stance on Stray Dog Management

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declared that both civic bodies and individuals who feed stray dogs could be held liable for any injuries or fatalities resulting from dog attacks, according to reports.

A panel comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria noted that for every incident of dog bites or injuries, particularly involving children or the elderly, the court would impose significant compensation on the state for its inaction.

Justice Nath remarked that those who claim to feed dogs would also bear responsibility. He questioned, “If you want to feed them, take them home. Why should dogs roam around, biting and frightening people?”

These comments were made while the court was overseeing compliance with a previous order issued on November 7, which mandated that all government properties, including hospitals, schools, and railway stations, be properly fenced to keep stray dogs out.

The court had instructed local authorities to ensure the removal of stray dogs from these locations and to transfer them to designated shelters after they have been vaccinated and sterilized.

Additionally, the judges emphasized that dogs removed from these areas should not be returned to the same locations from which they were taken.

Following this, several animal rights organizations expressed their concerns regarding the prohibition on returning the dogs to their original areas.

In July, a bench led by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had taken notice of the issue of stray dogs in public spaces after a media report highlighted the problem. On August 11, they directed the authorities in the National Capital Territory of Delhi to start relocating street dogs and to establish shelters for 5,000 to 6,000 animals within a six-week timeframe.

However, the case was later transferred to a three-judge bench led by Justice Nath just two days after the initial ruling. On August 22, the court suspended the earlier directives, stating that sterilized, dewormed, and immunized dogs should be returned to their original areas.

Nevertheless, the court specified that aggressive dogs or those infected with rabies should not be released back into the community.

On November 3, the court expressed serious concern regarding government employees feeding stray dogs on office premises, indicating that such actions contravened its orders that required the establishment of designated feeding areas for these animals.