When Compassion Is Criminalised: The Supreme Court, Stray Dogs, and Us

 

In the hierarchy of justice, the voiceless often remain unheard. Stray dogs, who share our streets and survive on our scraps, fall squarely into that category. Yet in August 2025, the Supreme Court of India found itself at the centre of a storm when it first barred public feeding of strays (August 11, two-judge Bench) and then partially softened its stance (August 22, three-judge Bench). What emerged was not clarity but confusion, not justice but a compromise that leaves both citizens and animals vulnerable.

At stake is not just the right to feed a hungry creature but the larger questions of governance, law, and compassion in a civilised society.

---

The August 11 Order: A Blanket Prohibition

On August 11, a two-judge Bench prohibited the feeding of stray dogs in any public place except in “designated community dog feeding spots.” On the surface, it appeared like an attempt at balancing public safety with animal rights. But the order ignored two crucial realities: first, that thousands of strays live in areas where no “designated spots” exist, and second, that such a blanket ban criminalises ordinary acts of kindness by citizens.

This ruling also clashed with the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 and 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which expressly recognise community feeding and mandate humane treatment of strays. By sidelining these rules, the Court inadvertently created a vacuum where compassion could be punished.

---

The August 22 Modification: A Softer but Still Troubled Stand

Realising the backlash, a three-judge Bench modified the earlier ruling on August 22. It allowed feeding of stray dogs but restricted it to specific locations “identified and earmarked by municipal authorities.” While this was a step away from total prohibition, the devil lay in the details.

What happens when municipalities fail to earmark spaces? What if those spaces are far removed from the dogs’ natural habitats? The Court’s attempt at middle ground leaves caregivers in a legal grey zone and dogs at the mercy of bureaucratic inertia. The shift from prohibition to regulation may sound progressive, but it still reflects a governance failure outsourced to citizens.

---

Law, Loopholes, and Lapses in Governance

The problem is not merely judicial. India’s stray dog policy has long been marred by loopholes:

1.    Failure of ABC implementation – The Animal Birth Control Rules mandate sterilisation and vaccination as the only long-term solution. Yet most municipalities treat this as optional, not mandatory. The result: rising populations, unvaccinated dogs, and avoidable human-dog conflicts.

2.    Selective reading of law – Courts invoke public nuisance and safety but often ignore the statutory framework that prioritises sterilisation and compassion over culling or criminalisation.

3.    Governance by neglect – Municipal budgets rarely prioritise ABC programs, and monitoring mechanisms are weak. Instead, litigation becomes the default forum for policymaking, with the judiciary stepping in to fill executive voids.

---

The Humanitarian Angle: People and Dogs as Victims

It is tempting to frame the issue as “humans versus dogs.” But the truth is that both are victims—of poor planning and policy paralysis.

• Citizens face rising incidents of dog bites, largely because unsterilised, hungry dogs become territorial. Parents live in fear for their children, and urban colonies are left to fend for themselves.
• Caregivers who feed strays out of compassion face harassment, stigma, and now the threat of contempt if they disobey court orders.
• Dogs themselves are left hungry, unvaccinated, and often brutalised in the name of public safety.

This triangular conflict is not natural; it is manufactured by years of governance failure.

---

Compassion as Constitutional Duty

The Supreme Court itself has, in earlier judgments, recognised the duty of compassion. In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), the Court affirmed that Article 51A(g) of the Constitution makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen to show compassion to living creatures. By criminalising or restricting feeding, the August orders appear to dilute that constitutional principle.

Moreover, Article 21—the right to life—extends not just to humans but to all living beings, as affirmed in multiple rulings. A blanket ban or unreasonable restriction undermines this jurisprudence.

---

The Way Forward: Law with Love

Instead of criminalising compassion, the solution lies in aligning law with practicality and humanity:

1.    Strict enforcement of ABC Rules – Sterilisation and vaccination, carried out scientifically, reduce stray populations and rabies risk. Cities like Jaipur and Chennai have shown success stories.

2.    Community–municipal partnerships – Local feeders and NGOs can be formally recognised as partners, rather than treated as offenders.

3.    Earmarked but realistic feeding zones – Feeding spots must be near natural dog habitats, not arbitrarily distant. Otherwise, they become meaningless.

4.    Awareness campaigns – Citizens must understand that aggression in dogs is directly linked to hunger and lack of vaccination.

5.    Legislative clarity – Parliament must amend the PCA Act to explicitly protect responsible stray feeding, so that compassion is not left vulnerable to judicial oscillations.

---

Conclusion: The Moral Test of a Nation

The way a society treats its weakest—whether poor, voiceless, or non-human—is the true test of its morality. By first banning and then restricting stray feeding, the Supreme Court’s August rulings risk sending a dangerous message: that compassion is negotiable.

India does not need laws that pit people against dogs. It needs laws—and governance—that recognise their shared vulnerability. Stray dogs are not the enemy; neglect is. And unless the State shoulders its responsibility, both citizens and animals will remain caught in an endless cycle of fear, anger, and litigation.

If compassion becomes a crime, then justice itself stands diminished.

---

✍️ Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. He writes on law, politics, and society, with a focus on governance failures and constitutional values.