Feed Them at Home If You Care So Much”: Supreme Court Tells Man Seeking Relief for Street Dogs
Pune: PMC To Establish Designated Feeding Spots For Stray Dogs
In a case that reignited the long-standing debate around the feeding of stray dogs in public spaces, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday addressed a plea filed by a Noida resident who claimed he was being harassed for feeding community dogs.
The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, took a firm stand during the hearing and posed a pointed question to the petitioner’s lawyer: “Why don’t you feed them in your own house?” The court further remarked, “Should every lane and every road be kept open just for large-hearted people? There’s space for animals, but no space for humans.”
The petitioner’s plea traces back to a March 2025 order by the Allahabad High Court, where the man sought protection from what he described as harassment and obstruction in his attempts to feed street dogs. According to his counsel, he was acting in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 — particularly Rule 20, which assigns responsibility to Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs), Apartment Owners’ Associations, or local civic bodies to create designated feeding zones for stray animals in the area.
The counsel argued that while such arrangements were being implemented in Greater Noida, the Noida authorities had failed to do the same, leaving compassionate citizens like his client to face resistance despite following the law.
However, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced by the argument. In a sharply worded response, the bench suggested a rather personal solution: “We give you a suggestion to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house.”
The court also addressed the public safety risks tied to stray dog feeding in open areas. Highlighting real-world consequences, Justice Mehta asked, “You go on cycling in the morning? Try doing it and see what happens.” When the lawyer responded that his client went on morning walks and regularly saw dogs, the bench underscored the dangers by noting, “Morning walkers are also at risk. Cycle riders and two-wheelers are at greater risk.”
The matter was eventually tagged with another pending plea of a similar nature for further consideration.
Previously, the Allahabad High Court had tried to balance both sides of the issue. While recognizing the importance of protecting street animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, it had also emphasized the right of common citizens to move freely and safely on public roads. It acknowledged the rising number of stray dog attacks, some of which have resulted in serious injuries and even deaths, stating that the situation could no longer be overlooked.
The high court had directed state authorities to act with “due sensitivity” — ensuring not just the protection of animals, but also the safety of people. It called for proactive steps to create safe, structured feeding points while maintaining law and order on the streets.
The Supreme Court’s recent observations may strike a chord with many who’ve witnessed the growing tension between animal lovers and public safety concerns in urban India. While compassion toward stray animals remains a noble cause, the court’s message is clear: public spaces cannot become battlegrounds between empathy and everyday safety.
In a country where kindness to animals is a cultural and legal responsibility, the challenge lies in finding the right space — literally and figuratively — for both strays and citizens to coexist without conflict.
