Home  > Recent Judgements  > Stray Dog Attacks on Beaches Affect Tourism’: Supreme Court Flags Public Safety & Governance Lapses

Jan  19- 2026

Stray Dog Attacks on Beaches Affect Tourism’: Supreme Court Flags Public Safety & Governance Lapses

IN RE: ‘CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE’ (AND CONNECTED MATTERS)

Introduction

In an important public interest proceeding on Wednesday addressing the growing menace of stray dog attacks across India, the Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concern over incidents of dog attacks on beaches, particularly in Goa and Kerala, and their adverse impact on tourism and public safety.

The case underscores systemic failures by States and Union Territories (UTs) in complying with earlier judicial directions relating to the management, relocation, and care of stray dogs in public spaces.

Bench & Proceedings

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising:

  • Justice Vikram Nath
  • Justice Sandeep Mehta
  • Justice NV Anjaria

During the hearing, the Court examined affidavits filed by various States/UTs pursuant to earlier directions aimed at addressing stray dog incursions in public places, institutions, and along highways.

Key Observations of the Court

Impact on Tourism:

Justice Sandeep Mehta specifically noted that beaches attract stray dogs due to the presence of fish carcasses and waste. Highlighting incidents in Goa and Kerala, he remarked that stray dog attacks on beaches “affect tourism also”, signalling a broader economic and social fallout beyond public safety concerns.

No Re-release of Dogs on Beaches:

The Bench agreed with the submission of Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, appearing as Amicus Curiae, that stray dogs picked up from beaches must not be released back in the same areas.

Vague & Non-Compliant Affidavits

The Court strongly deprecated the “vague” affidavits filed by several States/UTs. It observed that many affidavits:

  • Failed to specify the number of dogs removed from institutional premises
  • Did not disclose dog bite statistics
  • Lacked details on infrastructure, manpower, and shelter capacity

Justice Vikram Nath warned that continued non-specific affidavits could invite strong judicial strictures.

State-wise Highlights & Court’s Reactions

  • Assam:
    The affidavit was silent on manpower availability. The Court expressed shock at the data showing 1,00,066 dog bite cases in 2024 and 20,900 cases in January 2025 alone. The State sought three months’ time and indicated a plan to establish at least one dog shelter in every town with a population of 50,000 or more.
  • Gujarat:
    The State informed the Court that ₹60 crore had been sanctioned for the current year and ₹75 crore for the next year to create animal pounds. Justice Mehta observed that large infrastructure is unnecessary; what is required are “good places” where dogs can be properly cared for.
  • Haryana:
    The affidavit failed to mention steps taken to remove stray dogs from institutional premises, drawing adverse comments from the Bench.
  • Jharkhand:
    Claims of vaccinating and sterilizing over one lakh dogs were questioned. Justice Mehta remarked that such figures were “practically impossible” without adequate manpower.
  • Karnataka:
    The affidavit was silent on the number of dogs removed from institutions, prompting the Court’s warning against vague compliance statements.
  • West Bengal:

The affidavit did not mention the number or capacity of dog pounds. Justice Mehta described it as “as vague as it can be.”

  • Maharashtra:
    In contrast, the State informed the Court about the development of an online dashboard to provide real-time data on dog bites, sterilization, vaccination, and ABC centres, which the Court took note of positively.

Infrastructure & Preventive Measures

The Bench clarified that:

  • Boundary walls are not mandatory in all cases
  • Fencing may suffice to prevent the ingress of stray dogs into institutions
  • Such measures also serve to protect institutional property, apart from ensuring safety

Next Steps

Submissions from certain States/UTs and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) are still pending. The Bench scheduled further hearings at 2 PM the following day, indicating that the Court intends to closely monitor compliance.

Final Thoughts

This case marks a significant judicial intervention in balancing animal welfare, public safety, and economic interests such as tourism. The Supreme Court’s firm stance against vague compliance reflects growing intolerance toward administrative apathy in matters involving human safety, particularly that of children and vulnerable groups.

The proceedings signal that States and UTs must move beyond paper compliance and demonstrate measurable, data-backed action to address the stray dog menace in public spaces especially in sensitive areas like beaches, highways, and institutional premises.