NGOs, Individuals Feeding Stray Dogs In Institutional Campuses To Face Tortious Liability For Dog Bites: Supreme Court

"Assertion of a right to protect or maintain stray dogs in public spaces cannot be divorced from the obligation to ensure that such actions do not result in harm to others," Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling dated May 19, 2026, held that animal welfare organizations and individuals who feed or maintain stray dogs within institutional campuses must assume full tortious liability for any injuries or harm caused by the animals.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria observed that while the welfare of sentient beings is significant, it cannot eclipse the state's paramount obligation to safeguard human life and safety under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The proceedings arose from a suo moto writ petition initiated by the Court following news reports of escalating dog-bite incidents across the country. The Court was primarily considering several interlocutory applications filed by animal welfare organizations seeking to modify previous directions that mandated the removal of stray dogs from "institutional areas" like schools, hospitals, and railway stations. These organizations argued that the permanent relocation of dogs violated the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether individuals or NGOs asserting a right to maintain stray dogs in restricted spaces are liable for the consequences of those animals' actions. The Court was also called upon to determine if the statutory "right to feed" could override the constitutional right to a safe environment in sensitive public and private institutions.

Rights Of Stray Dogs Cannot Be Divorced From Responsibility For Human Harm

The Court noted that a pertinent question arises regarding whether individuals and organizations professing concern for stray dogs are willing to assume legal responsibility for the consequences. The bench emphasized that the assertion of a right to maintain stray dogs in public and institutional spaces must be accompanied by an assumption of liability for any injury or damage caused to the public.

The judges observed that there is currently an imbalance between the assertion of rights in favor of stray animals and the lack of accountability for their presence in sensitive environments. The Court remarked that institutional spaces, by their very nature, require a heightened standard of safety that cannot be compromised by unregulated animal activity.

"The assertion of a right to protect or maintain stray dogs in public spaces cannot be divorced from the obligation to ensure that such actions do not result in harm to others."

Mandatory Affidavit Of Liability Required For Feeding In Educational Campuses

Addressing social experiments in universities, the Court referred to submissions made by the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad. While NALSAR’s Animal Law Centre sought to institutionalize humane treatment, the Court permitted such activities only on an experimental basis, subject to a strict pre-condition.

The bench directed that any group or body operating within such campuses must expressly undertake tortious liability for any dog-bite incidents. This must be done by filing a mandatory affidavit with the Head of the Institution. The Court warned that if such an undertaking is not furnished, no activity involving the maintenance or feeding of stray dogs shall be permitted within the institutional premises.

"In the event of any incident of stray dog bite occurring within the campus, the Animal Law Centre shall be liable to face tortious liability for the injury caused to the individual/s concerned."

Institutional Areas Excluded From ABC Rules Requirement Of 'Re-Release' To Same Locality

The Court interpreted Rule 7(2) and Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023, in conjunction with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960. It held that the term "locality" or "street" cannot be expansively construed to include restricted-access spaces like hospitals, schools, and airports. The bench ruled that the statutory scheme does not mandate the re-release of dogs into such sensitive areas after sterilization.

The Court held that reading the Rules as mandating the reintroduction of stray dogs into high-footfall institutional areas would create an "irreconcilable conflict" with the constitutional imperative of ensuring public safety. It affirmed its earlier direction to municipal bodies to relocate stray dogs from these precincts to designated shelters without re-releasing them to the same location.

Court Expresses Alarm Over Fraudulent Sterilization Bills And Lack Of NGO Accountability

The bench took judicial notice of reports suggesting that some NGOs were indulging in raising fraudulent bills for sterilization procedures that were never performed. The Court referred to a specific instance in Madhya Pradesh where an NGO allegedly stockpiled dog reproductive organs to claim multiple bills. Consequently, the Court declined to issue directions mandating NGO involvement in sterilization programs.

Instead, the Court left it to the discretion of municipal authorities to decide on NGO engagement. The bench advised authorities to conduct rigorous due diligence, including background checks and technical capability assessments, before awarding contracts. It emphasized that public funds must be protected from misuse and directed that all NGO work must be subject to independent audits and continuous supervision.

"Any framework concerning the management and protection of stray dogs must necessarily be accompanied by clearly defined principles of accountability."

Constitutional Balance Must Tilt In Favor Of Preservation Of Human Life

In a powerful observation on the hierarchy of rights, the Court stated that while compassion for animal life is important, it cannot compel citizens to endure recurring threats to their own lives and bodily integrity. The bench held that when the safety of human beings is weighed against the interests of sentient beings, the constitutional balance must unequivocally tilt in favor of human life.

The Court dismissed all applications seeking to stay or modify the removal of stray dogs from institutional areas. It concluded by directing all High Courts to register fresh suo moto petitions to monitor compliance with these directions within their respective states, ensuring that the "menace of stray dog attacks" is curbed through effective administrative mechanisms.

Date of Decision: May 19, 2026