By Kavita Mistry 
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, while hearing a plea alleging harassment over the feeding of community dogs in Noida, asked the petitioner, “Why don’t you feed them in your own house?”
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta told the petitioner’s counsel, “We should leave every lane, every road open for these large hearted people? There is all space for these animals, no space for humans. Why don’t you feed them in your own house? Nobody is stopping you.”
The plea related to a March 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court.
The petitioner, the counsel said, was subjected to harassment and was unable to feed community dogs in line with the Animal Birth Control Rules.
Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 deals with the feeding of community animals and puts the onus on the resident welfare association or apartment owner association or local body’s representative of the local area to make necessary arrangements for the feeding of community animals residing in the premises or that area.
The top court, however, said, “We give you a suggestion to open a shelter in your own house. Feed every dog in the community in your own house.”
The petitioner’s counsel claimed compliance with the rules and said the municipality was creating such places in Greater Noida but not in Noida.
He said feeding points could be made at a place not frequented by people.
“You go on cycling in the morning?” the bench asked, “try doing it and see what happens”.
When the counsel said he goes on morning walks and sees several dogs, the bench said, “Morning walkers are also at risk. Cycle riders and two-wheelers are at greater risk.”
The bench then tagged the plea with a separate pending plea on a similar issue.
In the high court, the petitioner sought directions from the authorities to implement provisions of the rules with due care and caution, keeping in view the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
“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 concerns of common man, such that their movement on streets are not hampered by attacks by these street dogs,” the high court said.
The high court, therefore, expected the state authorities to exhibit “due sensitivity” to the concerns of the petitioner and the common man on the streets.
The high court said the observation was necessary because there were many instances of attacks by street dogs on people of late, which have resulted in loss of lives and grave inconvenience to pedestrians.
It disposed of the plea with a direction to the authorities to ensure that concerns highlighted by the court were duly taken care of and appropriate measures were taken to ensure protection of strays besides ensuring the interest of people on the streets was not jeopardised.
– Ends
Tune In