Supreme Court Finally Asks the Question Dog Activists Never Want Answered: Who Is Responsible?
For years, India’s stray dog crisis has been discussed almost entirely through emotion, not impact. Any attempt to raise concerns about safety, attacks, or fatalities has been drowned out by slogans, placards, and moral lectures about compassion. What has consistently gone missing from this debate is the lived reality of ordinary citizens who face aggressive stray dogs daily while simply trying to exist in public spaces. The recent observations by the Supreme Court of India finally forced that reality back into the conversation, and for that, the court deserves credit.
The Supreme Court’s remarks on holding dog feeders accountable for stray dog bite incidents did not come from hostility toward animals. They came from a long-overdue recognition that public safety cannot be sacrificed at the altar of unaccountable activism. Feeding stray dogs in public spaces is not an abstract moral act. It has real-world consequences. When dogs become territorial, aggressive, or emboldened in crowded residential areas, it is not the feeder who pays the price. It is children walking to school, senior citizens on morning walks, sanitation workers, delivery personnel, and commuters who become targets.
What makes this issue particularly frustrating is the imbalance of power in the debate. The people who suffer the most are also the least organised. They do not hold protests, dominate social media, or threaten legal action. They quietly adjust their routes, keep their children indoors, or live with constant fear. On the other side is a vocal minority that has successfully turned concern for safety into a taboo, branding anyone who speaks up as cruel, ignorant, or anti-animal. This moral bullying has silenced residents’ welfare associations, intimidated municipal officials, and stalled practical solutions.
The court’s intervention matters because it asks a basic question that has been deliberately avoided. If someone actively feeds stray dogs, encourages them to remain in a public area, and defends their presence there, who bears responsibility when harm occurs? Compassion without responsibility is not kindness. It is negligence. No other area of public life allows private choices to impose unchecked risk on others. The idea that stray dogs alone are responsible, while the humans who sustain and defend their presence face no accountability, is illogical.
Municipal authorities also deserve scrutiny. Poor implementation of animal birth control rules, lack of monitoring, and years of indecision created the vacuum that activists rushed to fill. But civic failure does not mean individuals are exempt from consequences. When governance collapses, informal power structures take over, and that is exactly what happened in many urban neighbourhoods. The result is a system where fear is normalised and dissent is suppressed.
What the Supreme Court has done is restore balance. It has reasserted that public roads, parks, and residential spaces are shared spaces, not private feeding zones. It has recognised that the majority’s right to safety cannot be overridden by a minority’s preferences, no matter how passionately expressed. This is not an attack on animal welfare. It is a refusal to let empathy be weaponised against common sense.
The most important part of the court’s stance is symbolic. It signals to ordinary citizens that their fears are legitimate and that they are not morally inferior for wanting safety. It also sends a message to activist groups that shouting, protesting, and intimidation cannot permanently replace accountability. Law exists to protect people first, and animals within a framework that does not endanger human life.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court deserves appreciation for showing clarity and courage in a debate long distorted by noise. It must not buckle under pressure from protestors who confuse volume with virtue and emotion with ethics. Standing firm on accountability is not cruelty, and it is not anti-animal. It is pro-society. The court should continue to stand for what is correct, even if it is unpopular with the loudest voices. Millions of Indians are watching, and for once, the judiciary is speaking for them.
