Why dogs run wild in Noida

MEGHNA UNIYAL

In 2021, a group of citizens comprising seven mothers and one father from a residential society in Noida, approached the Allahabad High Court for directions to the local authority to protect their families from stray dog attacks inside society premises. This after repeated, unprovoked attacks on their children by stray dogs who were being maintained and fed inside their society.

However, they were unable to get their petition filed because, at the time, the Supreme Court had asked lower courts not to hear any case related to stray dogs as the matter had been pending before it since 2009. The petitioners then knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court, only to be told that High Courts could resume hearing stray dog petitions, sending them back once again to their state High Court.

In October 2022, a seven-month-old infant, the child of labourers working inside Lotus Boulevard housing society in Noida, was mauled to death by a pack of sterilized stray dogs that were being fed inside the society’s premises. No FIR was filed by the Noida police, no compensation was paid to the family who lost their child and, by all accounts, the child’s parents were quietly packed off to another town.

Nine society residents filed a case in the Allahabad High Court, becoming party to the ongoing stray dog case, asking for relief and directions for the Noida Authority to protect citizens from stray dog attacks via the enforcement of relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh (UP) Municipality Act.

It may be noted that municipal authorities perform important, statutory, civic functions related to public health, safety and disease control, as mandated by their State Municipal Acts. The UP State Municipal Act vests statutory functions with the municipality, in particular related to preventing nuisance “likely to cause injury, danger, annoyance, or offence to the sense of sight, smell or hearing or which is or may be dangerous to life or injurious to health or property”, as well as discretionary duties like “the destruction of birds or animals causing a nuisance or of vermin, and the confinement or destruction of stray or ownerless dogs” as well as the power to make rules to remove public nuisance caused by “animals suffering from contagious diseases” and in order “to prevent spread or infectious diseases.”

In response to these petitions, the Noida Authority has submitted in its affidavit to the Allahabad High Court that the “provisions of the UP Municipalities Act would not be applicable in Noida as it comes under the UP Industrial Area Development Act” and not the State Municipal Act.

If the primary function of the Noida Authority is land acquisition and management, sans any municipal duties towards citizens, it raises important questions —­ who or which body does in fact have municipal and civic duties in Noida? Which government authority is to be held accountable for violation of Article 21 which guarantees the fundamental right to life of citizens? These questions should indeed be cause for worry for Noida residents, who are apparently bereft of a municipality.

Regardless, nothing can justify an administrative, land management authority indulging in policy measures that are not just a waste of public money but which also actively endanger the lives of citizens. In the last four years that such cases have been pending before the Allahabad High Court, instead of addressing these critical public health issues, the Noida Authority has earmarked `14 crores for a ‘pet park’ and, in a move that highlights its utter failure to even comprehend civic responsibilities and public safety, it has created multiple “enclosures for sick and aggressive stray dogs” inside residential areas, one just 100 meters from a school.

These hotbeds of danger and disease were ‘inaugurated’ with much fanfare by the CEO of the Noida Authority a few years ago, with ribbon cutting photos of the ‘event’ posted on the social media account of the Noida Authority. In light of the current state of affairs and the grave dangers posed by stray dogs in gated premises and public places, it’s hard to imagine a more insensitive, gimmicky and callous approach taken by a government body, municipal or not.

To make matters worse, despite the Noida Authority having told the High Court that it was picking up biting stray dogs under the ABC rules, and handing them over to NGOs, in recent months even that has stopped due to a supposed lack of dog vans and infighting between animal rights NGOs and activists, who are now accusing each other of corruption and animal cruelty. Meanwhile, according to the state government’s health department data, from January to May 2025, approximately 75,000 people in Noida have been bitten by animals, over 50,000 by stray dogs alone.

Court cases in India are fraught with problems like high costs and delays, making access to justice difficult, and leaving petitioners helpless and disillusioned. The petitioners in the Allahabad High Court face the additional complications of having to undergo repeated, in-person biometric procedures carried out in Allahabad, and valid only for three months. Despite the petitioners filing multiple applications for an urgent hearing, the case has not come up for over a year.

Dog attacks are traumatic, leaving lifelong mental and physical scars. The added nuisance and endangerment caused by stray dogs through chasing, barking, defecating and spreading diseases inside housing society premises, are conditions that seriously impinge on the quality of life of residents. Petitioners in this case include senior citizens who have spent their life savings on an apartment in what they imagined to be safe, gated communities, in a bid to live a peaceful retired life, only to be left deeply frustrated and emotionally drained. The very system meant to protect their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights has ended up compounding their suffering.  

Meghna Uniyal is Director, Humane Foundation for People and Animals