On the Supreme Court’s Dog-Feeding Ban and the ‘Silence of Article 51a(G)’

If compassion can be confined to a painted corner — can it still be called compassion? What happens when the law says love must be practiced within lines — not boundless, but boxed?

This is not a philosophical musing. This is what India faces now. The Supreme Court has declared feeding stray dogs in public places illegal, limiting compassion to “authorized feeding zones” designated by municipalities or the Animal Welfare Board of India. If judges truly believed in common sense — they would know dogs are territorial by nature. You can’t uproot their instinct and then expect them to show up at feeding zones carved into bureaucratic maps.

Territory Is Not a Nicety — It’s Nature

Dogs don’t roam like tourists. Each has a mental map. If Sarama had been fed outside the zone given by a municipal official, she would have stayed where she belonged — at her home, her ward, her streets. Who are we to tell her otherwise?

By forcing stray dog lovers to feed these dogs only in “authorized zones,” the Court has turned inherent compassion into organized cruelty. Gone are the days when the simple act of offering food freely in the streets was an expression of humanity. Now, compassion is regulated, rationed, and restricted.

When Compassion Contradicts the Constitution

Article 51A(g) enjoins every citizen to have compassion for all living creatures. It does not specify timings, zones, or territorial boundaries. Compassion is not an academic exercise or urban plan. It is spontaneous. It is moral. And it is local.

If the Supreme Court insists that compassion must only happen inside painted lines, it should be honest enough — and ambitious enough — to abolish Article 51A(g) itself. Because compassion that cannot roam free is no virtue at all.

Why This Judgment Feeds the Curse of Sarama

Remember Sarama — the faithful dog from the Mahabharata who, when insulted, cursed humanity: “You will have everything — wealth, power, life… but not mental peace.” In Mahabharata, Sarama is described as a celestial dog, the mother of the pup who was abused by King Janmejaya's brothers during a sacrificial ritual. After the pup (often referred to as Sarameya, meaning "son of Sarama") was beaten, Sarama confronted King Janmejaya and, seeing no just response, cursed him and foretold suffering as a consequence of his and his brothers' actions.

Today, that curse has transcended myth and become reality. Our world is driven by efficiency, by regulation, by zoning — and we have made even compassion transactional.

This judgment adds fuel to Sarama’s rage. It places boundaries on kindness, turning generosity into permit application. It punishes the spontaneous patronage of the vulnerable. And thereby, it drives us further from the mental peace Sarama warned us we would lose.

When Legalism Strangles Humanity

To mandate that dog lovers feed only in certain zones is to choose legal order over humane order. It elevates law above empathy. It reduces the sacred bond between humans and dogs — a bond rooted in shared streets, mutual watchfulness, quiet companionship — into a scene at the periphery of a municipal plan.

Compassion cannot be a compliance checkbox. Dogs don’t understand permits, policies, or feeding permits. They know presence, culture, familiarity, bread, and kindness.

A Return to the Living Law

Let us remind ourselves: Justice is not only delivered in courtrooms. It is embodied in how we feed, how we show up, how we care. The living law of compassion is deeper than any statutory boundary.

If Article 51A(g) rings hollow because judges are binding it to zones, then may we rather reclaim the spirit of the law — through our actions in streets, squares, and hearts. Compassion should not wait for permission. It should be given freely, everywhere, without a waiting period or a map.

Article 51A(g) mandates compassion for ALL living beings. The Supreme Court cannot confine kindness to cages. Compassion is beyond time, place, and territory.

Bounded Compassion vs. Living Law of Compassion

So, here is the final question we must ask ourselves and those who rule us: If compassion itself becomes regulated, are we still living as humans… or as functionaries of a law that forgot its origin?