The Supreme Court on Monday initiated proceedings on its own motion (suo motu) over the growing menace of stray dog attacks and the resulting fatalities, flagging the situation as “alarming and disturbing”. The report that prompted the court’s intervention concerned the attack on a minor child by a rabid dog. (File photo)

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took suo motu cognisance of the issue after a media report in the Times of India highlighted the tragic death of a six-year-old girl in Delhi due to rabies following a dog bite.

“This is a highly disturbing news report titled “City hounded by strays and kids pay price”. It contains extremely troubling details. There are reports of hundreds of dog bite incidents from both cities and peripheral areas, many of which have led to rabies infections. Ultimately, it is infants and senior citizens who are falling prey to this deadly disease,” the court noted in its order.

Also Read: Ludhiana sees over 7,000 dog bite cases in just 6 months

Reading out the operative part of the order, Justice Pardiwala proceeded to take suo motu cognisance of the issue and directed that the matter be placed before Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai for appropriate directions

“We are taking suo motu cognisance. The registry has been directed to treat the matter as a suo motu writ petition and place the order along with the news report before the Chief Justice of India for necessary directions,” the court said.

The report that prompted the court’s intervention concerned Chavi Sharma, a six-year-old from Delhi’s Pooth Kalan area who was attacked on June 30 by a rabid stray dog. Despite receiving initial medical attention, Chavi succumbed to the infection on July 26, highlighting the lethal consequences of unchecked dog bites and the failure of timely post-exposure treatment.

The suo motu development follows closely on the heels of observations made by another Supreme Court bench on July 15 regarding the need for regulating stray dog feeding and addressing public safety concerns.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while hearing a plea seeking designated spots for feeding stray dogs in Noida, had remarked that people should feed such animals within their homes rather than endangering others in public spaces.

“Do you go cycling in the morning?” the bench asked the petitioner’s lawyer, adding: “Try it one day and see what happens.” It highlighted how cyclists, two-wheeler riders, and morning joggers face persistent threats from stray dogs, particularly on isolated roads and parks.

The petitioner in that case, Reema Shah, had moved the top court against a March 3, 2025, order of the Allahabad High Court which struck a balance between allowing compassionate feeding of stray dogs and ensuring public safety. While seeking directions for dedicated feeding spots in Noida, Shah relied on a 2021 Delhi High Court judgment that directed Resident Welfare Associations and municipal corporations to facilitate community dog feeding at designated locations.

The Delhi High Court had noted that feeding should be carried out in spots identified by the Animal Welfare Board in consultation with RWAs and civic bodies, ensuring minimal conflict with residents. It also directed the creation of animal welfare committees in residential areas and urged police to protect dog feeders from harassment.

While the top court was initially inclined to dismiss Shah’s plea, it eventually agreed to tag it with a batch of similar pending cases that involve issues of stray dog attacks and regulation of feeding practices.

The bench of Justices Nath and Mehta remarked on the increasing encroachment of public spaces by animals, observing: “There is space for animals but no space for humans. Should we open a separate lane on every street for large-hearted persons to feed stray dogs and cows?”

At the centre of the legal debate lies Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which assigns the responsibility of arranging for community dog feeding to local bodies and RWAs, while also mandating safeguards to ensure human safety. The rule attempts to strike a balance between compassion for animals and protection of residents. Various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts have upheld the ABC Rules, though their implementation has often faced resistance from civic bodies and residents.