Court says alleged assaults are law-and-order issues, FIRs must be filed
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it would not examine allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by so-called anti-feeder vigilantes, observing that such incidents fall under law-and-order issues and that aggrieved persons can lodge FIRs.
Hearing arguments in the stray dogs case, the apex court also declined to go into claims of derogatory remarks allegedly made against women in connection with the issue. A three-judge special Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria observed that some arguments placed before it were “far from reality” and noted that several videos showed stray dogs attacking children and the elderly. The court was hearing pleas, including those filed by dog lovers, seeking modification of its earlier orders as well as petitions seeking strict compliance with existing directions.
Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted the plight of women dog feeders and alleged that anti-feeder vigilantes had taken it upon themselves to enforce the court’s earlier orders, leading to harassment and assault of women. Justice Vikram Nath responded that such incidents constituted criminal offences and advised aggrieved persons to lodge FIRs.
The Bench said it could not monitor individual incidents, reiterating that such matters were within the domain of law and order. When Pavani cited instances from Haryana and Ghaziabad where alleged assaults occurred without FIRs being registered, the court said established legal remedies were available and must be pursued. The Bench also declined to entertain submissions related to unregulated breeding and exotic imports, stating that they were beyond the scope of the stray dogs matter. Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked that the court’s directions were confined strictly to stray dogs and should not be expanded to unrelated issues.
On allegations of derogatory remarks against women, the court said such conduct was not authorised by any court order and that appropriate legal action could be taken against those responsible.
The Bench heard submissions from other senior advocates, including Abhishek Singhvi and Shadan Farasat. Referring to concerns about dogs in sensitive institutional spaces, the court cautioned against normalising the presence of stray dogs in places like hospitals, citing serious health risks. The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on January 13.
The court recalled that it had not directed the removal of all dogs from streets, but had ordered that stray canines be dealt with strictly in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. On November 7, it had directed the relocation of stray dogs from institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination, citing an alarming rise in dog bite incidents and road accidents caused by stray animals.
