Supreme Court to women dog feeders alleging assault: Lodge FIRs, move High Courts

Representative image

• SC: Local authorities must address harassment of women feeding stray dogs
• Court advises filing FIRs and seeking relief from magistrates or High Courts
• Dog breeding and waste management issues not covered in current case

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain, at its own level, allegations of harassment and violence faced by women who feed stray dogs, observing that such complaints fall within the domain of ordinary criminal law and must be pursued before the appropriate authorities.

The bench, comprising Justices Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, was hearing matters connected with the ongoing stray dogs case when submissions were made about alleged assaults by so-called “anti-feeder vigilantes”.

According to LiveLaw, the Court orally indicated that the aggrieved persons must seek remedies provided under law. It asked that FIRs be lodged and, if necessary, relief be sought from jurisdictional High Courts.

According to the bench, the Supreme Court cannot be expected to monitor or adjudicate individual instances of alleged violence.

Appearing for an animal rights activist, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani painted a grim picture of what she described as increasing hostility towards dog feeders, particularly women. She told the Court that women feeders were being “molested, beaten, disrobed and defamed” by vigilante groups.

Referring to specific incidents, she mentioned a case from Ghaziabad where a woman was allegedly slapped 19 times in under a minute, yet no FIR was registered. Pavani also claimed that in some housing societies in Haryana, bouncers had been deployed to deal with dog feeders.

Pavani further argued that authorities were turning a blind eye to complaints by women feeders. She suggested that the failure to register FIRs amounted to a form of passive endorsement by the administration.

Responding to this, the bench pointed out that remedies exist under the criminal justice system, including approaching magistrates or High Courts. It reminded counsel of the principles laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment regarding registration of FIRs.

The judges also made it clear that the scope of the present proceedings was limited. The bench noted that its earlier directions related only to the presence of street dogs in public places and institutions. The allegations being raised, it said, went beyond the contours of the case.

When Pavani attempted to raise concerns about unregulated dog breeding and import of exotic breeds, arguing that this contributes to the stray dog population, the bench firmly shut down the line of argument. Justice Nath cautioned counsel, “You address us on issues we are dealing with. Don't make this a platform for your other objects.” Justice Mehta added that the Court’s orders had nothing to do with breeding or imports, remarking, “Tomorrow you will say why cheetahs have been imported, why not take care of the local breeds? This is too much.”

The hearing also saw a sharp exchange over derogatory remarks allegedly made against women dog feeders. Pavani told the Court that vigilantes were misusing court orders as a pretext to abuse women. She said comments had gone as far as claiming that women “sleep with dogs for satisfaction”, calling the remarks deeply offensive and dehumanizing. Justice Nath responded by observing, “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.” However, he clarified that the Court’s orders did not authorize such conduct and advised that legal action be taken if laws were violated.

Pavani also referred to academic literature on feral dogs, highlighting distinctions between feral and stray animals and pointing to garbage and waste management as underlying causes. The bench, however, said that such broader policy issues were outside the ambit of the case currently under consideration.