The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued hearing several petitions related to the problem of stray dogs in India. During the hearing, the court questioned why the debate was focused only on dogs and not on other animals. The judges asked, “What about other animal lives? What about chickens and goats? Don’t they have lives too?”

During the proceedings, one of the petitioners tried to show the court a photograph of a 90-year-old person who was allegedly attacked by stray dogs and later died due to the injuries. The petitioner said the image showed the danger posed by stray dogs. However, the court stopped him and said there was no need to show such photographs.

A lawyer appearing for victims of dog attacks told the court that many people are suffering because of stray dogs and said that human rights must be protected. He referred to practices in countries like Japan and the United States, where abandoned dogs are taken to shelters and euthanised if they are not adopted. He claimed that Japan does not face a stray dog problem and has not reported rabies deaths since 1950.

An animal rights activist responded by saying that if all stray dogs were removed, other problems would increase. She asked what would happen to garbage and monkeys if dogs disappeared from cities.

The father of an eight-year-old girl who was attacked by stray dogs in Noida last year also appeared before the court. He said another child was killed in a similar incident and accused the Noida Authority of failing to act despite repeated complaints. He demanded that Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) should be allowed to declare their housing societies as “no dog zones”.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared in the case, said that people involved in the matter care about both dogs and the environment. When the court asked about the lives of other animals, Sibal said he had stopped eating chicken because of the cruelty involved. He also explained that killing one dangerous animal does not mean all animals of that species should be killed.

Sibal supported the Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate, and Release (CSVR) method, saying it has reduced stray dog populations in many countries. He argued that removing dogs completely would worsen garbage problems and create a heavy financial burden for local authorities.

Another senior lawyer, Colin Gonsalves, said dog bite data was exaggerated and claimed there were no rabies cases in 19 states since 2021. He warned that removing stray dogs could have serious consequences.

The court clarified that its earlier order applied only to places like schools, hospitals, and courts, not public roads. The Solicitor General said decisions about stray dogs in housing societies should be made by RWAs, not individuals. Justice Vikram Nath said the court would listen to both sides, those who support stray dogs and those who oppose them, before making a decision.