This article is Written jointly with J Shanmukha
(as Legal & Humane Conscience Keepers)

The Supreme Irony of Asking Dogs to Dine Indoors

Why do we feed a hungry dog in the street? Because he has no dining room. No address. No bell to ring. And certainly, no Supreme Court judge to tell him otherwise.

In a world already teetering between insensitivity and apathy, it now seems even acts of compassion must pass a judicial litmus test. The recent comment by a Supreme Court judge asking a petitioner, "Why don't you feed them in your own house?" in response to street dog feeding complaints, is not only baffling but downright tone-deaf.

Let us ask plainly:

• Should we ask a firefighter to carry the burning house to the fire station?
• Should a doctor wait until the bleeding stops before treating a wound?
• So why, pray, must we transport a hungry, homeless animal to a residential shelter before offering it food?

Street dogs are not pets. They are part of our urban ecosystem. They did not choose to be born in alleys and gutters, under broken vehicles or behind garbage bins. They are India’s forgotten citizens, born of our neglect and fed by the kindness of a few. And when someone feeds them on the spot — precisely where they dwell — what law of man or God finds fault in that?

Feeding is not a luxury. It is an immediate moral necessity.

Shall we wait until the dog faints of hunger and then engage in a logistical operation to relocate it indoors for a ceremonial meal? Maybe the Honourable Court could also recommend issuing ration cards and Aadhar numbers to strays next.

The Real Constitutional Spirit

The comment betrays a shocking ignorance — or convenient amnesia — of Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution which exhorts every citizen to “have compassion for living creatures.” Compassion is not tied to real estate. It doesn’t require four walls and a door. It requires empathy, something often absent in air-conditioned courtrooms and marbled chambers of legal power.

The Courts Once Knew Better

Let us not forget that the Supreme Court itself in Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja (2014) held that animals too have a right to live with dignity. It declared that “every species has an inherent right to live and shall be protected by law.”

In People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (PEST) vs State of Goa (2008), the Bombay High Court held that the feeding of stray animals cannot be stopped unless it causes substantial public nuisance.

The Delhi High Court in Dr. Maya D. Chablani vs Radha Mittal (2021) reinforced the right of citizens to feed strays and even directed local authorities to identify feeding zones.

But now, with a flick of judicial sarcasm, all this seems conveniently forgotten.

Gandhi’s Wisdom in the Dustbin?

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

That was Mahatma Gandhi — not a dog lover, but a truth lover.

If that quote is too inconvenient for today's jurisprudence, perhaps we should remove it from textbooks, chisel it off granite memorials, and stop parroting it on Gandhi Jayanti.

For a nation that calls itself a land of ahimsa, it is alarming how little we care about voiceless lives. From poisoning and beating dogs to courts mocking those who protect them, India's moral compass seems to be spinning wildly.

Satire, or Reality?

If we are to follow this peculiar logic of "feeding only at home," perhaps the government can soon extend it to:

• Feed the poor, but only inside your bungalow.
• Care for orphans, but only in your drawing room.
• Plant trees, but only on your balcony.

This is no longer about just dogs. This is about decency.

Are we so blind to suffering that even kindness must now be argued like a PIL?

Are our courts now protectors of peace, or prosecutors of compassion?

Do we want a society of silent stomachs, or a republic that still has room for empathy?

In a world obsessed with laws, are we forgetting to uphold humanity?