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.
