Supreme Court Rejects Wider Directions on Harassment of Stray Dog Feeders, Urges Victims to Seek Justice

Image Source: Internet

In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court declined to issue general directions on the alleged harassment of stray dog feeders and caregivers, citing the need for victims to approach law enforcement agencies to register first information reports (FIRs). The court emphasized that allegations of assault, molestation, or intimidation are matters of law and order, which must be addressed through the statutory process. The bench, comprising justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, underlined that the court cannot examine individual incidents or frame generic directions based on anecdotal instances. However, the bench clarified that victims of harassment can seek remedies under the law, including approaching the high courts if authorities refuse to register FIRs. The court was hearing submissions from senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, who alleged that vigilante groups were targeting women under the guise of enforcing the court's earlier directions on stray dog management. Pavani cited incidents from Tamil Nadu, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, including a case from Vellore where vigilantes allegedly entered a woman feeder's house and assaulted her. The bench, however, declined to entertain individual complaints, stating that the issue is a matter of law and order. The court emphasized that criminal offences must follow the established legal process, and victims should avail of the remedies provided under the law. The hearing forms part of a larger suo motu exercise by the court on stray dog management, following reports of a spike in dog bite incidents and repeated non-compliance by municipal bodies with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. The court has consistently maintained that it is enforcing the ABC Rules, not dismantling them, and that the failure lies squarely with local authorities across states and Union territories that have neglected sterilisation, vaccination, shelter creation, and waste management for years. The bench also heard submissions questioning the efficacy of the existing ABC framework and the limits of judicial intervention in the field. Counsel argued that there could be no 'one-size-fits-all' solution for the removal of stray dogs from public spaces, submitting that the issue requires a nuanced approach grounded in science and behavioural psychology. The court responded sharply, questioning the propriety of dogs being present in hospital premises at all. Observing that any dog living on the streets is likely to carry ticks, the bench warned that the presence of such animals in hospitals could have 'disastrous consequences' and cautioned against what it described as attempts to 'glorify' the presence of stray dogs in sensitive public spaces like hospitals. The matter will continue to be heard next week, with the bench indicating that it will consider further submissions from the parties involved.