Supreme Court on Feeding Stray Dogs: ‘Why Not Feed Them at Home’

Supreme Court on Feeding Stray Dogs: ‘Why Not Feed Them at Home’

Supreme Court on Feeding Stray Dogs became a trending headline after a sharp comment made during a hearing on a Noida resident’s plea. The petitioner claimed that he was being harassed for feeding stray dogs near his home. The court, however, responded with strong observations, raising serious concerns about the impact of street feeding on public safety.

🐶 What Was the Case?

The Supreme Court was hearing a case on July 16, 2025, where a man from Noida claimed he was being troubled for feeding stray dogs outside his residential area. The man argued that he was only following the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which allow local residents to feed stray animals.

But the court had a different perspective.

🏛️ What Did the Supreme Court Say?

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made a straightforward suggestion:

“Why don’t you feed them at your home? Who is stopping you?”

They added that roads and public streets should not be turned into feeding zones and questioned if every lane must be kept open for those with “big hearts” to feed dogs, even if it creates risk for others.

The court emphasized:

• Roads are meant for people, not stray dog feeding.
• Safety of pedestrians and cyclists is a priority.
• If someone wants to help stray dogs, they can open a private shelter at home.

📜 What Did the Petitioner Say?

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 requires Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) or apartment owners to designate feeding spots. He also pointed out:

• Greater Noida municipal authorities have made feeding areas.
• Noida still lacks proper feeding zones.
• There should be low-traffic spots where stray animals can be fed safely.

🚲 ‘Try Cycling in the Morning’

When the lawyer said he sees stray dogs while walking in the morning, the court countered:

“Try cycling once. Then you will know the risk.”

The justices noted that early morning walkers, two-wheeler riders, and cyclists are all at risk from stray dogs.

The case was tagged with another similar petition, and the hearing was postponed for a detailed future ruling.

Also read शुभांशू शुक्ला यांचे लाईव्ह अपडेट: भारताचे अंतराळवीर पृथ्वीवर सुरक्षितपणे परतले

🏛️ What Did the Allahabad High Court Say Earlier?

Earlier in March 2025, the Allahabad High Court had also heard this matter. The petitioner had demanded implementation of:

• Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, and
• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

The High Court agreed that stray dogs need protection, but not at the cost of public safety.

It directed authorities to:

• Balance animal rights and human safety
• Make sure that citizens can walk or commute without fear

The High Court also mentioned that stray dog attacks have increased, resulting in injuries and even deaths.

🔒 Safety of Both Dogs and Humans is Important

The courts agree on one thing: kindness to animals should not compromise the safety of others.

Authorities are expected to:

• Create designated feeding spots
• Take measures to reduce stray dog aggression
• Educate the public on responsible animal care

The Supreme Court on Feeding Stray Dogs made it clear — if you’re genuinely concerned, care for them at home or in a private shelter. Public safety comes first.

✅ Summary

The debate on feeding stray dogs in public spaces continues, but the court’s message is loud and clear — responsibility and safety must go together. While compassion for animals is important, it must not create danger for common citizens, especially on public roads.