The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a stern warning to the Union and state governments, declaring that heavy compensation would be imposed for every human life lost or seriously affected by dog bites, citing their "miserable failure" to enforce the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria expressed deep frustration over the persistent stray dog menace, which the court noted has escalated dramatically due to decades of governmental inaction despite discussions dating back to the 1950s.

The bench further held dog feeders accountable for attacks by strays they support, asserting that feeders should take responsibility by sheltering the animals in their own homes rather than allowing them to roam freely and pose lifelong risks to victims. The court criticised "so-called dog lovers" for obstructing municipal efforts to capture aggressive dogs, referencing an incident in Gujarat where lawyers allegedly assaulted officials attempting to manage strays near the High Court premises.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier position that it does not advocate the complete removal of all street dogs but demands strict implementation of existing statutory provisions. The bench appealed to lawyers from opposing sides to facilitate proceedings focused on holding authorities accountable and devising effective action plans, rather than prolonging repetitive arguments that have turned court hearings into public platforms.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets June 30 Deadline for BBMP Polls in Bengaluru

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing parties challenging certain court directives, urged extension of safety measures to sensitive public spaces such as airports, courts, and parks, arguing that ABC Rules primarily address birth control without adequately mitigating attack risks, particularly from feral dogs. He also contended that street dogs retain no inherent right to reside in gated residential societies, even if they inhabit such areas, and that current interpretations are being misused to grant undue protection.

Representatives from animal welfare organisations countered that authorities lack sufficient funds for permanent housing of strays and emphasised the need for compassion, warning that mass removal could exacerbate the problem by allowing new packs to form. One suggestion for a national adoption incentive policy drew sharp rebuke from the bench, which questioned why similar incentives are not prioritised for human orphans. The matter stands adjourned, with the next hearing scheduled for January 20.

Also Read: Supreme Court Questions Lifetime Immunity for Election Commissioners