During a key hearing on stray dog management, the Supreme Court flagged rising incidents of dog attacks on tourists at beaches in Goa and Kerala, pressing states to urgently balance public safety with humane animal welfare measures.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took serious note of reported incidents of stray dog attacks on tourists at popular beaches in Goa and Kerala while hearing a long-running case on stray dog management across India.
Observing that such incidents have wider implications for public safety and tourism, the court sought detailed responses from states and union territories on the steps being taken to address the issue.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of compliance reports filed by several states. The judges stressed that vague assurances without credible data on dog population control, bite incidents, and preventive infrastructure would not suffice.
The matter forms part of a broader judicial effort to assess how animal welfare laws can coexist with citizens’ right to safety in public spaces.
Beach Attacks in Focus: “This Also Affects Tourism”
During the hearing, the bench referred specifically to incidents of dog attacks reported from beaches in Goa and Kerala-states that attract large numbers of domestic and international tourists. The court observed that beaches, often littered with food waste and fish remains, become hotspots for stray dogs, increasing the risk of attacks on unsuspecting visitors.
Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked that such incidents “also affect tourism,” underlining the economic and reputational consequences for coastal states. The court was informed that in some areas, tourists had been chased or bitten by stray dogs, triggering fear and complaints from local communities and visitors alike.
Officials appearing for various states acknowledged the problem, stating that local bodies were responsible for implementing animal birth control (ABC) programmes and ensuring public safety.
However, the bench questioned whether these programmes were being executed effectively and uniformly, particularly in high-footfall public areas such as beaches.
Court Seeks Data, Timelines and Accountability
A recurring concern raised by the Supreme Court was the lack of reliable, standardised data. The bench asked states to place on record statistics on stray dog populations, dog bite incidents, sterilisation rates, and vaccination coverage. Judges noted that without accurate data, policymaking remains reactive rather than preventive.
Several states and union territories sought additional time-ranging from three to six months-to strengthen sterilisation drives, expand shelter infrastructure, and improve monitoring mechanisms.
Some officials informed the court that plans were underway to establish new shelters, identify land for housing captured dogs, and set up digital dashboards to track ABC implementation and dog bite cases.
The court reiterated its earlier position that stray dogs captured from sensitive or high-risk public areas—such as beaches, schools, hospitals, and transport hubs-should not be released back into the same locations. This, the bench clarified, was essential to prevent repeated incidents and ensure public confidence.
A Long-Running Case Rooted in Public Safety and Welfare
The stray dogs case, titled In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay the Price, has been before the Supreme Court since mid-2025. It was initiated following reports of repeated dog attacks, including fatal incidents involving children, in various parts of the country.
Over multiple hearings, the court has sought to strike a balance between the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the legitimate safety concerns of citizens. While rejecting indiscriminate culling as illegal and inhumane, the bench has consistently emphasised the need for effective sterilisation, vaccination, waste management, and shelter facilities.
In previous orders, the Supreme Court directed states to remove stray dogs from high-risk public areas and relocate them to shelters after sterilisation and vaccination. However, uneven implementation, funding gaps, and administrative delays have continued to hamper progress on the ground.
Systemic Gaps
Experts and animal welfare organisations have repeatedly pointed out that stray dog aggression is often a symptom of deeper systemic failures.
Poor waste management attracts dogs to public spaces, while inadequate sterilisation leads to unchecked population growth. In tourist areas, open food waste and fish remains further exacerbate the problem.
Local administrations, on the other hand, argue that limited resources, staff shortages, and lack of coordination between departments make large-scale implementation of ABC rules challenging.
The Supreme Court’s sharp questioning during the hearing reflected its frustration with these persistent gaps, particularly when public safety is at stake.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This case highlights a truth India can no longer ignore: conflicts between humans and animals are rarely about animals alone.
They are about governance failures, civic neglect, and the absence of long-term, humane planning. Stray dogs did not create this crisis-unmanaged waste, weak enforcement of sterilisation laws, and fragmented responsibility did.
At the same time, fear and anger stemming from attacks, especially in shared public spaces, are valid and demand urgent action. Compassion and safety must not be framed as opposing values.
Evidence-based policies, community participation, accountable local governance, and sustained investment in humane solutions are the only way forward.
