The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned a petitioner about feeding stray dogs, asking why they don't feed them at home, while hearing a plea alleging harassment over the feeding of community dogs in Noida. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta raised concerns about public safety, suggesting that there seems to be plenty of space for animals but not enough for humans.
The court's remarks came during a hearing challenging a March 2025 order from the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner claimed to be facing harassment while trying to feed community dogs in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The petitioner's counsel argued that they were merely complying with Rule 20 of the ABC Rules, which places the responsibility for feeding community animals on resident welfare associations (RWAs), apartment owners' associations, or local bodies, mandating designated feeding points for stray animals. They added that while such feeding points were being created in Greater Noida, Noida authorities had yet to implement them.
However, the Supreme Court remained skeptical. Justice Nath questioned, "Why don't you feed them in your own house?" and added, "We should leave every lane, every road open for these large-hearted people? There is all space for these animals, no space for humans". The court further suggested, "We give you a suggestion - open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house".
The High Court, in its earlier order, acknowledged a rise in reported dog attacks and growing concerns among pedestrians. It directed authorities to act with "due sensitivity" toward both strays and human residents, emphasizing that while the protection of street dogs is warranted, authorities must also consider the concerns of the common man so that their movement on streets is not hampered by attacks by these street dogs. The High Court expected state authorities to exhibit "due sensitivity" to the concerns of the petitioner and the common man on the streets. It noted instances of attacks by street dogs on people, resulting in loss of lives and grave inconvenience to pedestrians, and directed authorities to ensure that concerns highlighted by the court were duly taken care of and appropriate measures were taken to ensure the protection of strays while ensuring the interests of people on the streets were not jeopardized.
The Supreme Court tagged the matter with a similar pending plea, emphasizing the need to balance compassion for animals with the safety and rights of citizens. The court also raised safety concerns, noting that morning walkers and two-wheeler riders are often at risk due to street dogs. The case highlights the ongoing debate and challenges in managing stray animal populations in urban environments, balancing animal welfare with public safety concerns.
