On 15th July, the Supreme Court of India took a sharp stand against a petitioner, Reema Shah, who claimed harassment for feeding stray dogs in Noida. The apex court suggested that such acts should be carried out at home rather than in public spaces. The court questioned the petitioner, “Why don’t you feed them in your own house?” The two-judge bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, was hearing a plea challenging the March 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Vikram Nath bluntly asked the petitioner to feed the dogs at home rather than on the streets. The bench expressed concerns about safety and public inconvenience caused by uncontrolled street dog feeding.
Bench highlights safety risks and lack of public space
The petitioner argued that she was only following Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which places responsibility for feeding community animals on local bodies, RWAs, or apartment owners’ associations, through designated points.
However, the apex court was not convinced. The court said, “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 bench pointed out the impracticality of allowing public spaces to be taken over by dog feeders. The bench went on to suggest a solution with a dose of sarcasm, “Open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house.”
‘Try cycling in the morning’ – practical risks flagged
The arguments soon turned to the dangers faced by morning walkers, bicycle riders and two-wheeler riders due to the presence of free-roaming dogs. One of the judges asked the petitioner, “You go on cycling in the morning?” and suggested, “Try doing it and see what happens.” The petitioner’s counsel replied that she took regular morning walks and encountered dogs often. The court responded, “Morning walkers are also at risk. Cycle riders and two-wheelers are at greater risk.”
Given the overlap in concerns, the court tagged the plea with a similar ongoing matter for a consolidated hearing. The court was focused on the broader implications for public safety than on procedural compliances when the petitioner said designated feeding spots were created in Greater Noida but not in Noida.
Allahabad High Court ordered balance in rights of animals and public safety
The matter in the Supreme Court stemmed from a March 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court, where the bench had tried to balance the rights of animals with public safety. The High Court had urged authorities to act with “due sensitivity” towards both humans and animals, while ensuring strict implementation of the ABC Rules and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. OpIndia accessed the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in March this year.
Notably, the state authorities’ counsel informed the High Court that meetings had already been held and steps were being taken in accordance with the ABC Rules, 2023. The state urged the court to address the petitioner’s concerns accordingly. However, the court pointed out that the issue concerned the common man as well.
The court had said in the judgment, “While protection of street dogs would be warranted in accordance with the provisions of the applicable statute, at the same time, the authorities will have to bear in mind the concern of common man, such that their movement on streets are not hampered by attacks by these street dogs. A balance approach would be needed such that not only the concern of prevention of animal cruelty is addressed, but at the same time, the interest of common man is also protected.”
The court further stated, “We expect the authorities of the State to show due sensitivity to the concerns raised in the writ petition and to ensure that necessary steps are taken in public interest to protect the cause raised in the present petition and also the concern of common man in moving on the streets. This observation is necessary because there are many instances of attacks by the street dogs on the common man of late, which has resulted in loss of lives & grave inconvenience to the pedestrians.”
It was evident that the High Court sought to strike a balance between the rights of feeders and stray dogs, and those of the common man, who is increasingly facing the menace of stray dogs.
The stray dog menace in India has reached an epidemic level. In 2024, there were 37 lakh cases of dog bite reported across the country. Some states like Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Kerala have seen a spike in dog bite cases over the years. While animal lovers claim saving stray dogs is a community’s responsibility, with an estimated population of around 7 crores, stray dogs have made it impossible for children, the elderly, pedestrians, disabled and other vulnerable people to fearlessly walk on the streets.
