Who Is Accountable If A Child Dies? Supreme Court Asks On Stray Dog Attacks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern over the practice of feeding stray dogs in public places. The court questioned whether compassion shown towards animals is being balanced with responsibility towards human safety.

During the hearing, the bench posed a sharp question on accountability, asking who should be held responsible if a minor were to lose their life in a stray dog attack. The court stated that while animal welfare matters, public safety takes priority.

The bench also questioned whether organisations and individuals advocating the feeding of stray dogs in public areas should bear responsibility in case of adverse incidents.

The observation came amid growing concerns over attacks involving street dogs in residential and public spaces.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar informed the court that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules mainly focus on population management.

He argued that even strict implementation of these rules would not entirely prevent dog attacks. He further pointed out that the existing framework does not adequately address the issue of aggressive behaviour among stray dogs.

Referring to an earlier hearing held on January 8, the Supreme Court noted the poor enforcement of the ABC Rules. It also reiterated that animal lovers must recognise their civic responsibilities.

The court clarified that it had never ordered the removal of all street dogs and had only stressed humane handling in accordance with the law.

The bench also highlighted public health concerns, noting that stray dogs can carry viruses. If wild animals such as tigers consume infected dogs, diseases like canine distemper can spread and prove fatal to wildlife.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh urged the court to view the issue beyond a narrow dog-versus-human lens.

He described it as a wider human-animal conflict and cited data showing that around 50,000 people die annually due to snake bites, with monkey attacks also posing risks.

Singh added that stray dogs play a role in controlling rodent populations and maintaining ecological balance.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that culling stray dogs would not solve the problem. She maintained that sterilisation remains the only effective long-term solution.

In addition, she criticised regulatory failures and called for better funding and oversight of organisations working at the grassroots level.

A woman who survived a dog attack also addressed the court, stating that proper implementation of the ABC programme could reduce aggression. She attributed her attack to fear-driven behaviour caused by prolonged cruelty towards the animal.

The Supreme Court has been hearing the matter as a suo motu case since July last year.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Unauthorised Use Of Bhuvan Bam’s Images Online