Supreme Court Directs Women Dog Feeders To Lodge FIRs, Move High Courts; Declines Relief In Stray Dogs Matter Over ‘Anti-Feeder Vigilantes’ Harassment Claims
From the Editors's Desk
During a hearing in the ongoing “stray dogs” matter, the Supreme Court on Friday orally advised women who feed dogs and allege harassment or assault by what they described as “anti-feeder vigilantes” to file police complaints and seek relief before the appropriate High Courts.
The bench observed that the allegations, if true, disclose criminal offences and said the affected individuals should pursue the remedies available under law, including registration of FIRs. The judges noted the Supreme Court cannot adjudicate individual instances of alleged harassment across the country. “If someone is harassing women, it's a crime under the Penal Code. Get FIRs registered. There are procedures available for how to get FIRs registered”, Justice Vikram Nath said.
A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria was hearing submissions in the case. The court declined to examine claims of violence against women dog feeders at the Supreme Court level, characterising the issue as a law-and-order concern for which remedies exist under criminal law.
Appearing for an animal rights activist, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani told the bench that dog feeders—particularly women—were being molested, beaten, forcibly disrobed and defamed by “vigilantes”. Referring to multiple incidents, she cited a case from Ghaziabad where a woman was allegedly slapped 19 times in under a minute, but no FIR was registered. Pavani also alleged that some housing societies in Haryana had hired bouncers to “tackle” dog feeders.
Pavani argued that authorities were effectively endorsing such conduct by refusing to register FIRs even when complainants approached the police. In response, the bench pointed to legal options available to complainants, including approaching the jurisdictional magistrate and moving the High Court, noting that the law provides a mechanism to address non-registration of FIRs. The court also underlined that its prior directions in the matter related to the presence of canines on public roads and in institutional settings, and said the issues being raised on harassment and assault went beyond the scope of the current proceedings.
The senior counsel then raised concerns about what she described as unchecked dog breeding and exotic imports, arguing that the preference for foreign breeds contributes to the rise in indigenous strays. The bench declined to entertain the point, stating it did not arise from the case being heard. “You address us on issues we are dealing with. Don't make this a platform for your other objects”, Justice Nath said.
Justice Mehta, in the same vein, indicated that if there were irregularities in import or breeding, the concerned statutes provide remedies, but those questions were separate from the stray-dogs dispute. “If there is any illegality in the import or breeding of the imported dog breeds, then there are provisions in the Act. You take recourse of that. This has got nothing to do with the stray dogs issue. Import of our order is very clear - restricted to stray dogs or street dogs. Nothing to do with breeding. Tomorrow you will say why cheetahs have been imported, why not take care of the local breeds? This is too much”, Justice Mehta said.
Returning to her earlier submission, Pavani referred to allegedly derogatory comments aimed at women dog feeders and argued that certain individuals were acting as self-appointed enforcers of court orders. “There are anti-feeder vigilantes who have assumed the role of enforcing the Court orders”, she said.
When Pavani questioned whether anyone could claim a licence to use abusive language against women while invoking court directions, Justice Nath remarked that public criticism—however harsh—was common, including of judges themselves. “License is there with the public to criticize everyone in derogatory and whatever language they wish to do. We are criticized. In very derogatory language. We don't react”, Justice Nath said.
Pavani nevertheless stressed the gravity of the alleged remarks and said the language had, in some instances, crossed extreme lines. “It's to the extent of saying that women sleep with dogs for satisfaction! Who says that? I anticipate that day where your lordships might have to take suo motu of 'A City Hounded My Molesters and Women Feeders Paying the Price'...it's happening across the country”, she said.
The bench reiterated that the appropriate response was to initiate legal action where offences are made out, adding that court orders did not authorise such conduct. “take action...[this Court order has not given license to people to talk like this]...if people are talking like this, you take action against them”, Justice Nath said.
The discussion also touched on an article about feral dogs that Justice Mehta had asked counsel to read and be prepared on. Pavani pointed to what she described as an important distinction between stray and feral dogs, adding that the author had acknowledged the problem was man-made and linked to garbage and waste.
Case Title: In Re : 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price'
Case Number: SMW(C) No. 5/2025 (and connected cases)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice N.V. Anjaria
