A five-year-old boy was injured on Sunday evening in Udaipur, Rajasthan, after three stray dogs allegedly attacked him while he was playing near his residence in Gautam Vihar colony, according to the local police. CCTV footage from the area reportedly shows the dogs knocking the child to the ground and dragging him before biting him. His mother rushed out upon hearing his screams and managed to chase the animals away, following which he was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. The incident triggered concern in the locality, with residents pointing to a perceived rise in similar occurrences, including a reported attack on an eight-year-old boy in another residential area of Udaipur two months earlier.
The incident comes against the backdrop of heightened national attention on the management of community and stray dogs following recent directions of the Supreme Court. On August 11, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed authorities in Delhi-NCR to begin relocating stray dogs from public spaces to shelters, initially by creating facilities to house 5,000 dogs, and warned of strict action against obstruction. The Court sought a status report within eight weeks on the creation of shelters or dog pounds. These directions prompted mixed reactions: several resident welfare associations supported the move citing public safety, while animal welfare advocates questioned the availability of land, resources, and operational capacity to conduct mass relocation without escalating human–dog conflict.
Subsequently, when a plea relating to stray dogs was mentioned for urgent hearing by the Conference for Human Rights (India), the Chief Justice of India B R Gavai indicated that the matter would be looked into. In the wake of protests and representational concerns, a new three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria was constituted to hear the suo motu matter. During a subsequent hearing, the bench observed that the “whole problem” in Delhi-NCR stemmed from inaction by local authorities in implementing the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules on sterilisation and immunisation of canines, and reserved orders on an interim prayer seeking a stay of the August 11 directions.
The legal framework governing municipal responsibility towards community dogs includes the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control rules, which envisage sterilisation, vaccination, and humane management, including duties assigned to local bodies for public health and safety. Courts have generally emphasized compliance with these rules, data-driven implementation, and maintaining a balance between public safety and animal welfare. The evolving judicial consideration suggests that any relocation measures will be assessed for legality, capacity, and adherence to due process, including shelter standards and transparency in execution by civic authorities.
In this context, the Udaipur incident illustrates the practical challenges confronting urban administrations in preventing attacks while ensuring lawful and humane control of dog populations. As the Supreme Court considers interim relief and clarifies the scope of its August 11 directions, urban local bodies may be expected to strengthen sterilisation and vaccination drives, improve shelter infrastructure where mandated, and enhance public communication and rapid-response protocols. The matter remains under judicial scrutiny, and further directions from the Court will likely shape municipal strategies in balancing constitutional obligations, statutory mandates, and community concerns.
