Supreme Court It on Tuesday refused to modify its November 2025 directions to all states and Union territories to remove stray dogs from institutional areas like schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots and railway stations, and ruled that such dogs cannot be released back to these places even after sterilization.
Dismissing a batch of applications seeking withdrawal, clarification or modification of the earlier directions, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria said the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 do not provide any “absolute or unqualified right” to re-release sterilized stray dogs in sensitive public places.
The court dismissed all petitions challenging the standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) in November 2025, saying that the SOPs were in line with both the statutory framework and earlier directions of the court.
And, in a fresh move, the bench allowed legally acceptable measures, including euthanasia of rabid, terminally ill or clearly dangerous dogs, subject to veterinary assessment and statutory safeguards.
Read this also SC refuses to change his order to remove stray dogs: ‘Go for euthanasia if necessary’
In the 131-page judgment, the bench said the problem of stray dog attacks has taken a “deeply worrying form” across the country and warned that continued inaction of the state would invite contempt proceedings, disciplinary action and contempt liability.
The court said, “The uncontrolled population of dogs has become increasingly feral, and there is no place for such animals in human populated areas as they pose a serious threat to public safety.”
The bench underlined that Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, which provides for re-release of sterilized and vaccinated dogs in the same area from where they were picked up, cannot be interpreted differently or mechanically applied in institutional areas.
“Such a provision (ABC rule) cannot be read in isolation or expanded in such a way that it would extend its application to sensitive and restricted premises such as hospitals, schools, colleges, sports complexes, transport hubs including airports and other similar institutional areas,” the judgment said.
Read this also After 30 years, Center defends delay in implementing Delhi Rent Act before Supreme Court
The court held that the “harmonious and purposeful construction” of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the ABC Rules does not support the continued presence or compulsory breeding of stray dogs in such places. The bench said, “Wide application of Rule 11(19)… would be a misconception, as it would run contrary to the scheme of law and could have serious adverse consequences on public safety and health.”
According to the court, the material placed on record clearly demonstrates that the presence of stray dogs at these places poses serious dangers, especially to “children, patients and the elderly”. The bench said its November 2025 directions represent a “calibrated approach” balancing animal welfare concerns with public safety and were issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. “The purpose of the instructions issued under the order dated November 7, 2025 was to reconcile the competing considerations of animal welfare and human safety,” it said.
Rejecting the argument that the directions violated the ABC rules, the bench said the orders neither replace nor abolish the statutory framework but only “streamline and regulate its application in line with constitutional imperatives and practical realities”.
The court said, “No principle of public policy…can be said to mandate or even contemplate the continued presence of stray dogs in such institutional areas.”
The bench emphasized that when human safety and animal welfare concerns are weighed together, “the constitutional balance must necessarily and clearly tilt in favor of preservation and protection of human life”.
Stating that the right to life under Article 21 is paramount, the Court held that citizens have the right to access public places “without the constant apprehension of being exposed to physical harm, assault or life-threatening incidents such as dog bites”.
The court said the current crisis was largely a result of the “persistent failure” of states and municipal authorities to effectively implement the ABC framework introduced in 2001 and strengthened in 2023. “Sporadic, underfunded and inconsistent implementation of sterilization and vaccination programs has resulted in uncontrolled growth of the stray dog population.” The bench described the situation as evidence of “systemic administrative lapses and chronic lethargy”.
Citing reports from different parts of the country, the court said incidents of dog bites are occurring with “alarming frequency and severity”, including at airports, residential areas and urban centres. Referring to incidents in Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and even Delhi’s IGI airport, the bench said attacks on children, elderly citizens and international travelers reflected “serious inadequacies” in the implementation of the law. “The loss is not merely statistical in nature, but has serious humanitarian, social and public health consequences,” it said.
In one of the strongest passages of the judgment, the bench warned that uncontrolled conditions could limit civil life to the “Darwinian principle of evolution”, where survival depends on “physical strength, chance or circumstance”.
It said, “The Constitution of India does not envisage a society where children, elderly persons and vulnerable citizens are forced to survive at the mercy of physical strength, chance or circumstance due to the failure of the state machinery.”
The court also extensively considered the issue of accountability of animal welfare groups and individuals who feed stray dogs within campuses and institutional premises. It raised questions about whether such groups would be willing to take “victim liability” for injuries caused by dogs they keep or feed.
The bench directed that any animal welfare group or student body feeding or maintaining stray dogs within educational institutions will have to file an affidavit admitting the liability before the head of the concerned institution. “Failing to do so, no such activity of keeping or feeding stray dogs will be permitted within the institutional premises,” the order said.
Rejecting the demand for formation of an expert committee, the bench said the issue required not “further deliberations” but “effective implementation”. “The existing statutory framework, coupled with the directions issued by this Court, provides a sufficiently clear and workable mechanism,” it said. The court also upheld AWBI’s SOP, extending the framework to other high-footfall public places such as parks, religious places, tourist destinations, airports and recreational places. It acknowledged that the categories mentioned in the November order were only illustrative and not exhaustive. “These places are equally characterized by significant public access and congregation,” the bench said.
The court directed all states and union territories to set up at least one fully functional animal birth control center in every district, equipped with veterinary infrastructure, trained personnel and sterilization facilities. It ordered adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin in all government medical facilities and asked officials to strengthen vaccination and shelter infrastructure in a time-bound manner.
The court also extended protection to municipal and state officials implementing the directions and said no FIR or punitive action should ordinarily be initiated against officials acting honestly in compliance with court orders.
Further, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts across the country to register suo motu mandamus proceedings to monitor the implementation of its stray dog management directions.
The Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories along with the Central Government and NHAI have been directed to file updated compliance affidavits before the respective High Courts by August 7, 2026. The SC will next hear the case on November 17, 2026, after receiving the consolidated compliance report from the high courts.
