India has a significant stray dog population, and in many areas, these dogs are treated as a natural
part of the environment. However, there are increasing instances where stray dogs have attacked
individuals without any provocation, leading to hospitalization, financial loss, emotional trauma,
and, in some cases, even death. This raises an important legal question—who can be held
responsible for such incidents?
While certain remedies already exist—such as filing an FIR, reporting the incident to municipal
authorities, or seeking compensation—this article primarily focuses on two legal avenues
available to victims:
1. Filing a civil suit in a Civil Court for damages
2. Filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 before the High Court
1. Civil Suit
a. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code allows courts to try all suits of a civil nature. Since the
injury caused is personal in nature, it falls within the purview of “civil nature.”
b. Under established principles of civil liability, the law provides for recovery of damages
directly caused by a person’s negligence. The Municipal Corporation owes a duty of care to
citizens and is required to protect them and prevent any foreseeable harm. Any damage
caused by an aggressive stray animal fall within the scope of foreseeable harm.
c. If civic bodies have been informed of aggressive activity or complaints indicating possible
danger, and still fail to take any action, such failure amounts to negligence. If the aggrieved
party can prove that such lapses led to their injury, either directly or indirectly, they can
claim compensation for medical expenses and potential income lost due to the injury.
2. Writ Petition
a. Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs or orders for the
enforcement of fundamental rights, as well as for any other legal rights. This provision
enables individuals to seek remedies against violations of their rights by the State or public
authorities.
b. Through such a petition, the aggrieved party can argue that the inaction of the authorities
has resulted in a violation of their right to life and the right to live with dignity, as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This approach is particularly effective
when the failure of the civic body is not an isolated incident but reflects a pattern of
repeated negligence or a systemic issue. In such cases, a writ petition becomes a powerful
tool to demand accountability and structural reform, potentially setting a legal precedent
for future cases
While both civil suits and writ petitions serve as effective legal remedies by enabling the
aggrieved party to seek monetary compensation and imposing accountability on civic authorities,
a writ petition may offer a more impactful course of action. It allows direct access to the High
Court under its writ jurisdiction and can lead to broader systemic reforms through judicial
directions—thus setting a legal precedent for future cases.
Although it is important to respect and protect the rights of animals, this must not come at the
expense of human safety. The right to life and personal security under Article 21 of the
Constitution must take precedence. A stray dog attack may appear to be an unfortunate
coincidence, but more often than not, it stems from administrative inaction and inadequate public
management. Where civic authorities fail in their statutory and constitutional duties, the law
provides an avenue for recourse. Victims need not suffer in silence—legal remedies exist to
ensure both accountability and justice.
