New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday made pointed observations on the issue of stray dogs, remarking that “the only thing left is counselling dogs,” as it reviewed the status of compliance related to the removal of stray animals from public places.
The observation came during proceedings in which the court was examining whether directions regarding the relocation of stray dogs from sensitive and high-footfall areas were being properly implemented. These locations include schools, hospitals, bus stands and railway stations, where the presence of stray animals has been flagged as a matter of public safety.
While reviewing the compliance status, the court expressed dissatisfaction over the manner in which its earlier directions were being carried out. The remark about “counselling dogs” was made in the context of what the bench indicated as an apparent lack of effective action on the ground, despite repeated instructions.
The court’s comments reflected its concern that the issue continues to persist even after clear directions were issued to ensure that public spaces, especially those used daily by children, patients and commuters, are kept free from stray dogs. The bench indicated that the situation raised questions about the seriousness with which the authorities were treating the matter.
The Supreme Court has, in earlier proceedings, emphasised that areas such as schools, hospitals, bus stands and railway stations require special attention due to the vulnerability of people who frequent them. During the latest review, the court sought to assess whether the concerned authorities had taken concrete steps to remove stray dogs from these locations as directed.
As the compliance status was discussed, the court noted shortcomings in implementation. The remark suggesting that “only counselling dogs is left” underscored the frustration of the bench with what it perceived as inadequate enforcement of its orders. The statement was not a literal suggestion but a pointed comment on the apparent inefficiency in addressing the issue.
The bench’s observations highlighted that directions issued by the court are meant to be followed in both letter and spirit. The presence of stray dogs in public places, despite repeated instructions, was seen as an indication that the measures taken so far had not yielded the intended results.
The court did not announce any new directions during the hearing but focused on reviewing the status of compliance with existing orders. Its remarks served as a reminder to authorities responsible for animal control and public safety that the issue remains under judicial scrutiny.
The matter of stray dogs has been a recurring subject before the Supreme Court, with concerns often raised about public safety and the balance between animal welfare and human safety. In the present review, however, the court confined itself to assessing whether earlier directions related to specific public places were being followed.
By referring to locations such as schools and hospitals, the bench underlined the importance of ensuring that vulnerable sections of society are not exposed to potential risks. The court’s comments suggested that continued non-compliance could not be taken lightly.
The observation made during the hearing has drawn attention to the ongoing challenges in implementing court directions at the ground level. While the court did not elaborate further, the tone of its remarks indicated that it expects stricter adherence to its instructions.
The review of compliance is expected to continue as the court monitors the steps taken by authorities to address the stray dog issue in designated public spaces. For now, the Supreme Court’s sharp remark has once again brought the issue into focus, emphasising the need for effective and timely action.
