Supreme Court Raises Questions Over Responsibility in Street Dog Attack Cases

The Supreme Court has raised important questions over legal responsibility in cases involving injuries or damage caused by street dogs. The court asked whether animal welfare activists, animal lovers and related organizations would be willing to take accountability if ordinary citizens suffer harm due to street dog attacks.

In its latest observations, the court made it clear that individuals or organizations advocating protection for street dogs cannot avoid responsibility if their actions result in risks to public safety. The bench emphasized that citizens have the right to move freely and safely in public spaces without fear of dog attacks.

The three judge bench refused to reconsider its earlier ruling regarding the relocation of street dogs from crowded public areas to shelters. The court stated that places such as schools, colleges, bus stations, railway stations and hospitals require the highest level of safety standards and cannot be exposed to avoidable risks.

The judgment also highlighted the growing number of dog bite incidents involving children, elderly citizens and international visitors across the country. The court noted that these ground realities cannot be ignored and directed authorities to strengthen efforts aimed at controlling the street dog population.

The bench also issued directions to state governments and Union Territories to improve infrastructure for animal birth control systems. It instructed authorities to establish at least one fully operational animal birth control center in every district with trained staff, transportation and surgical facilities.

In a significant development, the Supreme Court also approved compassionate euthanasia for street dogs affected by rabies, severely ill animals and dogs considered dangerous to human life. However, the court clarified that such action can only be taken based on veterinary expert recommendations and strictly under existing legal rules and animal welfare regulations.

The judgment further mentioned examples of institutional responsibility and observed that organizations allowing care and feeding activities within their premises should also be prepared to accept responsibility if any incident causes harm to people.