தெருநாய் தொல்லை - கடிப்பதன் பாதிப்பு உணவு கொடுப்போர் மீது பொறுப்பு & நடவடிக்கை உறுதி - உச்ச நீதிமன்றம்

 ‘Serious’ about dog feeder liability, says SC as animal groups warn of ‘unfortunate’ outcomes Updated - January 20, 2026

The three-judge Bench makes the observation after advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an intervener, submits that he was under the impression that the Bench’s earlier remark on fixing accountability on dog feeders was made ‘sarcastically’ and could therefore be ‘misinterpreted’ Aaratrika Bhaumik

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 20, 2026) said it was “serious” about holding dog feeders accountable for bite incidents, even as animal welfare groups cautioned that the court’s oral observations were leading to “unfortunate” repercussions, including reported attacks on feeders.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria made the observation after advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an intervener, submitted that he had been under the impression that the Bench’s earlier remark on fixing accountability on dog feeders was made “sarcastically” and could therefore be “misinterpreted”.

Justice Nath, however, clarified that the observation was not made in jest. “Although we do not know what we will do in this matter, the comment was not made sarcastically but on a serious note. It was made in the course of a dialogue during the hearing,” he said.

This prompted Mr. Bhushan to apprise the court that while oral exchanges between judges and lawyers were commonplace, certain adverse remarks could have tangible repercussions on the ground. He pointed out that individuals were relying on such oral observations to justify attacks on dog feeders.

“Sometimes, the remarks of the court could lead to unfortunate consequences. Feeders are being beaten up, and people are taking refuge under these remarks,” he told the Bench.

At this point, Justice Mehta further clarified that the oral remarks were made as part of a dialogue with a counsel. “These remarks were made during oral arguments, in the course of a dialogue with a counsel. It does not make any difference,” he said.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who was also present in the courtroom, then intervened to point out that both the Bench and the Bar had a duty to exercise restraint, given the wide publicity of the proceedings. “As a senior member of the Bar, I wish to say that these proceedings are televised. There is a duty on both the Bar and the Bench to be circumspect,” he said.

Acknowledging the need for caution in view of the nature of the proceedings, Justice Nath, who was heading the Bench, said: “We are restraining ourselves from making comments which would otherwise have been made in this matter.”

Earlier, the top court had indicated that it was inclined to impose “heavy compensation” on States for every dog bite incident while also fixing accountability on dog feeders in cases where attacks result in serious or “lifelong” consequences. The judges had also orally remarked that those feeding such stray canines ought to assume responsibility by keeping the animals within their homes or premises.

Apprising the court of possible interventions to reduce incidents of dog bites, Mr. Bhushan submitted that sterilisation programmes had not been implemented effectively in major cities owing to inadequate accountability mechanisms. He pointed out that while sterilisation efforts had failed in some cities, they had yielded results in others, such as Lucknow and Goa.

“The way to make sterilisation effective is to ensure transparency and accountability. There should be a system through which people can report stray dogs that appear to be unsterilised. Such complaints should be recorded on a designated platform, with clearly identified authorities responsible for responding to them,” he said.

Bench flags ‘contemptuous remarks’ by Maneka Gandhi

As Mr. Ramachandran began his submissions on behalf of former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi, the Bench expressed strong disapproval of certain remarks attributed to his client. The judges orally observed that the statements were directed against the court’s earlier directions and were “contemptuous” in nature.

“A little while ago, you were urging the court to be circumspect. Have you examined the kind of remarks your client has been making? She has made all kinds of remarks without even thinking... Your client has committed contempt,” the Bench said.

The judges, however, added that they were refraining from initiating contempt proceedings against the former Union Minister, on account of their “magnanimity”.

Mr. Ramachandran then said that he would refrain from addressing his client’s remarks, as no contempt proceedings had been initiated against her. He added, however, that while politicians were entitled to make a wide range of public statements, lawyers and judges were held to a different standard.

“I am representing a cause. Lawyers and judges operate on a different plane from politicians. Be that as it may,” he said.

Mr. Ramachandran then proceeded to underline the importance of rabies control programmes and animal birth control measures in addressing the growing population of stray dogs and related bite incidents.

Addressing these submissions, Justice Mehta questioned the absence of any reference to budgetary allocations in the petition. “Your client has been a Union Minister, a long-standing parliamentarian and a well-known animal rights activist. Tell us why the application is silent on budgetary allocations made during her tenure. What has been her contribution to addressing these issues?” the judge asked.

Mr. Ramachandran replied that he was unable to answer the query orally since budgetary allocations were a matter of policy.

The Bench concluded hearing submissions from the petitioners on Tuesday (January 20, 2026) and posted the matter for further hearing on January 28 when it is expected to begin hearing arguments from the Union government and the States.

Earlier, on November 7, 2025, the court had ordered all States and Union Territories to ensure removal of stray dogs from high-footfall public institutions, including educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots and railway stations. Terming the rise in dog bite incidents a matter of “human safety concern”, the judges had ruled that re-releasing them would “frustrate the very effect” of securing such institutional spaces.

The court has consistently maintained that its directions on the removal of stray dogs are limited to high-footfall, high-risk institutional areas and are intended to protect vulnerable groups, including children and the elderly.