New Delhi, Jan 13 (NationPress) The Supreme Court on Tuesday scrutinized the mindset of individuals and organizations that provide food to stray dogs in public spaces, questioning whether their empathy extends solely towards animals rather than humans.

During the proceedings, the apex court posed a critical question regarding accountability, inquiring who would be liable if a nine-year-old child is harmed in a stray dog incident.

“Shouldn’t groups that promote feeding stray dogs in public areas also bear responsibility?” the court queried.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules primarily focus on controlling the population of stray dogs, noting that even effective implementation would not entirely eradicate the risk of dog attacks. He emphasized that the ABC rules fail to sufficiently tackle the problem of aggressive stray dogs.

Reflecting on a previous hearing on January 8, the bench acknowledged the inadequate enforcement of the ABC Rules and warned dog enthusiasts about their duties. The court's remark that dogs can sense fear in humans before attacking gained widespread attention. Moreover, the court clarified that it had never mandated the removal of all street dogs but had stressed their humane treatment in line with the ABC Rules.

The court also pointed out that stray dogs can harbor certain viruses, and when they are attacked by wild animals like tigers, they can transmit diseases such as canine distemper, which could lead to the death of those animals.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh advised that the matter should not be simplified to a dog-versus-human issue but viewed in a broader context of animal-versus-human conflict.

He highlighted that approximately 50,000 individuals lose their lives annually due to snake bites, with monkey attacks also reported. Singh noted that dogs help manage rat populations and that maintaining ecological balance is crucial.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that eliminating stray dogs would not solve the population issue and insisted that sterilization is the most effective solution.

“If regulatory bodies had performed their duties effectively, we would not be in this predicament today,” she asserted, insisting that organizations on the ground must receive adequate funding. She also claimed that numerous program centers are not properly utilizing their allocated funds.

A woman, who was a victim of a dog attack, addressed the court, expressing her belief that effective implementation of the ABC program would mitigate both aggression and the stray dog population. She recounted being bitten by a community dog without provocation and sought to understand the reasons behind such behavior.

“The dog had endured cruelty for an extended period; it was kicked and stoned. This was defensive aggression triggered by fear,” she explained, adding that cruelty towards otherwise friendly community dogs instills fear, which can lead to aggression. She emphasized that her suffering was a result of others' actions.

The Supreme Court has been examining this issue as a suo motu case since July of the previous year.