SUPREME COURT DIRECTS WOMEN DOG FEEDERS FACING VIGILANTE HARASSMENT TO FILE FIRS & MOVE HIGH COURTS:

During a hearing on the stray dogs case, the Supreme Court directed women who feed dogs and have raised allegations of harassment and assault by self-styled anti-feeder vigilantes to file First Information Reports (FIRs) and seek remedies from the appropriate High Courts. The bench emphasized that such acts constitute criminal offenses under the penal code and advised the affected individuals to engage with law enforcement authorities to ensure FIRs are registered. The court pointed out that it cannot oversee every individual complaint, as procedures exist for addressing these issues through proper channels. If harassment is occurring, particularly against women, the aggrieved parties should pursue FIR registration, with established mechanisms available for this purpose.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria. The court declined to entertain claims of violence against women dog feeders and caregivers at the apex level, classifying it as a law and order concern. It reiterated that remedies are accessible under existing penal laws for those impacted. Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, representing an animal rights activist, informed the court that dog feeders, especially women, are facing severe mistreatment, including molestation, physical beatings, disrobing, and defamation by these vigilantes. She referenced specific incidents, such as one in Ghaziabad where a woman was reportedly slapped 19 times in under a minute, yet no FIR was lodged despite complaints. Pavani also mentioned that in certain residential societies in Haryana, bouncers have been employed to confront and intimidate dog feeders.

The advocate further argued that authorities are passively endorsing this behaviour by failing to register FIRs from women dog feeders who approach them for help. In response, the bench advised that remedies could be sought before the relevant Magistrates or High Courts, in line with the principles outlined in the Lalita Kumari judgment. The court noted that its prior orders in the case were confined to the presence of canines on public roads and in institutions, and thus the arguments presented extended beyond the current proceedings' scope.

Pavani then brought up concerns regarding unregulated dog breeding and the importation of exotic breeds, suggesting that the preference for foreign dogs contributes to the proliferation of indigenous strays. However, the bench dismissed these points as irrelevant to the ongoing case, urging counsel to focus on the issues at hand rather than using the platform for unrelated objectives. If any illegalities exist in the import or breeding of foreign dog breeds, the appropriate provisions in the relevant Act should be invoked, as these matters are unrelated to the stray dogs issue. The court clarified that its orders are strictly limited to stray or street dogs and do not pertain to breeding practices. It cautioned against broadening the discussion to extraneous topics, such as the importation of other animals like cheetahs, emphasizing that such expansions are excessive.

Later, Pavani highlighted derogatory statements directed at women dog feeders, claiming that anti-feeder vigilantes are assuming roles to enforce court orders while using abusive language. She questioned how individuals could be permitted to employ such terms under the pretext of judicial directives. The bench responded that the public has the freedom to criticize others, including in harsh or derogatory ways, and noted that even the judiciary faces similar criticism without reaction. However, if remarks cross into unacceptable territory, such as insinuating that women engage in inappropriate acts with dogs for personal satisfaction, the affected parties should take legal action against those responsible. The court stressed that its orders do not grant anyone license to make such statements, and appropriate measures should be pursued if they occur. Pavani warned of a potential nationwide crisis where women feeders are hounded by molesters, possibly requiring the court to intervene suo motu in the future.

In the context of an article on feral dogs that one justice had previously instructed counsels to review, Pavani drew a distinction between stray and feral dogs. She pointed out that the article's author acknowledges the problem as human-induced, stemming from issues like unmanaged garbage and waste.