In a significant ruling, India's Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of applications filed by animal rights groups and dog lovers seeking to modify an earlier directive concerning stray dogs. The court upheld its previous order stating that stray dogs picked up from public areas like hospitals, bus stands, schools, and railway stations must not be returned to these locations after vaccination or sterilization, but instead be confined to shelters.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria refused to recall the November 2025 order, emphasizing the severe public safety concerns. The court highlighted “deeply disturbing incidents” of dog attacks, including children mauled, elderly people targeted, and even international travelers falling victim.
State Responsibility and Public Safety
The Supreme Court held the state squarely responsible for failing to address these incidents. Justice Sandeep Mehta, delivering the judgment, stated, “Right to life with dignity encompasses the right to life freely without threat of harm from a dog bite attack. The state cannot remain a passive spectator.” He added that the court could not be oblivious to the harsh realities where vulnerable individuals fall victim to dog bites, noting that the Constitution does not envisage a society where children and elderly people survive on the mercy of chance or physical strength.
The court acknowledged the “staggering dimension” of the problem, attributing the continued recurrence of attacks to failures in implementation rather than flaws in the existing directions.
New Directives for Stray Dog Management
Alongside upholding its earlier order, the bench issued a fresh set of directives to address the escalating issue:
- States and Union Territories are mandated to strictly enforce the Animal Welfare Board of India Rules.
- Each state and UT must establish at least one Animal Birth Control (ABC) center per district to manage stray dog populations.
- Adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulins must be ensured across all regions.
- Officials of local bodies implementing these directions are entitled to protection; no First Information Reports (FIRs) or criminal complaints should ordinarily be registered against them for duties performed in compliance with the court's orders.
- Authorities may consider euthanasia for rabid or dangerous dogs, where legally permissible, to mitigate immediate threats to human life.
- High Courts are directed to register suo motu cases to actively monitor compliance with these directives.
- The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has been directed to secure highways from stray cattle, an issue also contributing to road safety concerns.
The bench warned that officials who fail to implement the court's directions will face contempt proceedings and disciplinary action.
Evolution of the Case
The matter originated in July 2025 when a two-judge bench took suo motu cognisance of a news report concerning the death of a child allegedly caused by a dog bite in the National Capital Region. An initial order for all stray dogs in NCR to be picked up and confined to shelters generated significant public outrage. The case was then transferred to a three-judge bench, which initially modified the direction to allow dogs to be released after vaccination and sterilization. However, in November 2025, further directions were issued prohibiting the release of dogs back to public institution premises and banning street feeding except at designated spots, ultimately leading to the current reaffirmation of shelter confinement.