Feeding stray dogs: how law balances questions of compassion & public order

Indian Express

19-07-2025

The Supreme Court observed this week that citizens who wished to feed stray dogs should consider doing so inside their own homes.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta were hearing an appeal filed by a Noida resident who had been allegedly harassed for feeding stray dogs in the common areas of her housing society.
The strongly polarising issue of feeding community dogs has frequently led to litigation over the years. Courts have weighed in on questions of constitutional protections, local governance, and claims over shared civic spaces.
The president of the Residents' Welfare Association of the petitioner's society had allegedly broken some pots in which she had kept water for stray animals, harassed her, and killed 10 sterilised stray dogs. Local authorities had taken no action on her complaints, and had instead asked her to not place the pots again.
The woman had then approached Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed her petition in the interest of the 'common man'.
The court had said that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (ABC Rules) did warrant the protection of street dogs, but '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'.
The ABC Rules, 2023, notified under The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, seek to control stray dog populations through sterilisation, and to curb the spread of rabies by vaccinating them. The Rules lay down protocols to ensure that the feeding of dogs respects both animal welfare and public safety.
The ABC Rules, which replaced the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001, use the expression 'community animals' instead of 'stray dogs' — recognising that these dogs are not ownerless intruders but territorial beings that inhabit and belong to their local environments.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutionally guaranteed right to life and liberty as extending to animals as well. In its verdict in the 2014 Jallikattu case, the top court held that animal life falls within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution (Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja).
Also, Article 51A(g) places a fundamental duty on citizens 'to have compassion for living creatures'. All this means that the presence of dogs in residential areas cannot automatically be considered unlawful. Nor can those who feed them be considered offenders unless their actions violate specific behavioural and spatial guidelines set by the law.
Rule 20 of the ABC Rules, 2023 ('Feeding of Community Animals') states that 'it shall be responsibility of the Resident Welfare Association or Apartment Owner Association or Local Body's representative… to make necessary arrangement for feeding of community animals' if someone living in that area 'feeds or provides care to street animals as a compassionate gesture'.
The Rule states that the feeding locations must be away from high-footfall areas like staircases, building entrances, and children's play areas. The designated spaces must be kept clean and litter-free, and community dogs should be fed at an appointed time.
The Rule also lays down a dispute resolution mechanism involving the chief veterinary officer, representatives of the police, the district Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, organisations conducting animal birth control, and the RWA.
The big picture is that dogs have a right to be fed, but this must be done in ways that minimise disruption to shared social spaces. The Rules try to strike a balance between compassion and public order.
In March 2023, the Bombay High Court in Sharmila Sankar & Ors v. Union of India ruled in favour of residents who had faced opposition from their housing societies for feeding dogs. The court said that RWAs and societies cannot restrict the feeding of community animals or threaten or penalise individuals who do so. The court affirmed that the ABC Rules have 'the force of law'.