The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the emotions being expressed in the case so far appear to be “only for dogs,” while hearing of petitions related to the issue of stray dogs. 

The Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria resumed hearing the matter on Tuesday. Responding to arguments that the issue was highly emotional, Justice Mehta said, “Emotions so far seem to be only for dogs.”

Questioning accountability in cases of dog attacks, Justice Mehta asked who would be held responsible if a nine-year-old child was bitten by a stray dog. “The organisation that is feeding them? You want us to shut our eyes to the problem,” he said.

 The court further said that for every dog bite, death, or serious injury caused to children or the elderly, the state could be made liable to pay heavy compensation for failing to act. The Bench also pointed to the need to fix responsibility on individuals and groups that insist on feeding stray dogs. “If you want to feed them, take them to your house. Why should dogs be roaming around, biting and scaring people?” the court said.

The Bench also referred to the January 6 incident in Gujarat, where a stray dog bit a lawyer inside the High Court premises. The incident had prompted the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association to demand the urgent removal of stray dogs from the court campus due to rising dog bite incidents.

The top court noted that the situation had become so serious that when municipal authorities attempted to capture the dogs, they were allegedly attacked by lawyers. “Now we have cases even inside the court premises. The worst part is that when municipal authorities went to capture, they were attacked by lawyers! So-called dog lovers," the court said.

"Dogs carry a certain virus...tigers which attacked dogs in Ranthambore were infected with an incurable disease," it added.

The matter was heard on three consecutive days last week, with the court primarily examining the presence of stray dogs in institutional spaces and the failure of municipal authorities to manage the issue effectively.

During the hearings, animal welfare groups and dog lovers sought modifications to the court’s earlier directions, arguing that stray dogs should be released in the same areas from where they are picked up. They suggested that scientific population-control models could reduce dog numbers and eliminate dog bite incidents over time.

On the other hand, petitioners representing victims argued for the removal of stray dogs from residential complexes and housing societies, citing safety concerns.