NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the owner of a pit bull that attacked a six-year-old boy last month, leaving the child with what the court described as “serious, irreparable injuries.” The court also directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) not to release the dog without putting in place “adequate safeguards” to ensure it does not pose a threat to others.
Justice Sachin Datta orally observed that the authorities should have acted in time to prevent such incidents. “The authorities should have taken timely action. The government must take ameliorative measures in conjunction with the corporation to tackle this menace,” the judge said, noting that the dog had allegedly been involved in several previous attacks for which complaints were filed, but no action was taken.
The court was hearing a petition filed by the child’s father, who sought a minimum compensation of ₹25 lakh from civic authorities and the police for alleged negligence. The plea also sought free medical treatment for the child—who reportedly lost his right ear in the attack—and a ban on such dog breeds.
Appearing for the MCD, counsel Tushar Sannu informed the court that the pit bull was seized soon after the incident and has been housed at an animal care centre. He added that the dog was unregistered and that an FIR had been lodged by Delhi Police, which is investigating the matter.
The attack occurred on November 23 in Prem Nagar in northwest Delhi. According to police, the boy’s parents and neighbours managed to free him from the dog and rushed him to Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital in Rohini. After receiving preliminary treatment, he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. Though he has since been discharged, the child requires repeated hospital visits for ongoing treatment. The court directed Safdarjung Hospital to continue providing proper medical care.
When the petitioner’s counsel told the court that the family belongs to the economically weaker section and sought free treatment, Justice Datta observed that the primary responsibility for bearing the medical costs lay with the dog’s owner and issued him notice. “Wouldn’t your claim for damages also lie primarily against the owner?” the judge asked, while seeking responses from the police and the civic body.
In his petition, the father said he was in “grave grief, pain and suffering” after witnessing his young son in severe pain, trauma, and terror due to what he termed the “total inaction and delinquency in duty” of the authorities.
Posting the matter for hearing next month, the High Court directed the police to take “expeditious steps” in the investigation and submit a status report.
