Citing an “alarming rise of dog-bite incidents,” the Supreme Court on Friday issued a sweeping order directing that all educational institutions, hospitals, public sports complexes, bus stands, depots, and railway stations across India be properly fenced to prevent the entry of stray dogs.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria passed the order in the suo motu case concerning the stray dog menace. The Court said that it will be the responsibility of the concerned local self-government institutions to capture stray dogs from such public areas and shift them to designated dog shelters after vaccination and sterilisation, in line with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
The bench further ruled that once picked up, the stray dogs must not be released back in the same area. “Permitting the same would frustrate the very purpose of liberating such institutions from the presence of stray dogs,” the Court observed.
The bench directed that local bodies conduct regular inspections to ensure that no stray dog habitats exist within the fenced premises.
After the pronouncement, senior advocates Anand Grover and Karuna Nundy urged the Court to consider their submissions before finalising the order. Nundy argued that “if dogs are removed, new dogs will occupy the same spot.” However, the bench declined to entertain the submissions and proceeded to finalise the order.
Directions to Remove Stray Cattle from Roads and Highways
The Court also issued parallel directions for the removal of stray cattle and other animals from highways and expressways across India. It upheld the directions previously issued by the Rajasthan High Court on this issue and ordered a coordinated national drive.
“A joint coordinated drive shall be undertaken to immediately remove all such animals found on highways/roadways/expressways, including cattle,” the Court stated. It added that such animals must be shifted to goshalas or shelter homes and warned that non-compliance would invite personal accountability.
“Chief Secretaries of all states/UTs shall ensure strict compliance with this. Otherwise, officers will be held personally responsible. Status to be filed in 8 weeks, indicating mechanism developed to carry out directions,” the bench directed.
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the stray dog menace on 28 July 2025, after a Times of India report titled “In a city hounded by strays, kids pay price”. Initially, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had issued interim directions on 11 August 2025, expressing concern over the rising incidents of dog bites and rabies.
That bench ordered the Delhi government and civic authorities to relocate stray dogs to shelters and barred their release back into localities. The directions also extended to Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad.
The Court warned that “if any individual or organization obstructed the authorities from picking up stray dogs, they would face legal consequences.” It even allowed authorities to create a dedicated force for this purpose.
However, the matter took a new turn when some lawyers approached Chief Justice BR Gavai, arguing that the August 11 order conflicted with earlier Supreme Court rulings. The case was then transferred to the three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath.
On 22 August 2025, this new bench stayed the earlier order, remarking that the previous direction “prohibiting the release of the treated and vaccinated dogs seems to be too harsh.” Referring to Rule 11(9) of the ABC Rules, the Court clarified that sterilised and vaccinated dogs must ordinarily be released back to their original locality, except those “infected with rabies, suspected to be infected with rabies or exhibiting aggressive behavior.”
The bench also reiterated its earlier order prohibiting public feeding of stray dogs, directing civic bodies to create designated feeding spaces. It again warned that no individual or organization should obstruct municipal authorities carrying out animal control measures.
Further, the Court expanded the matter’s scope beyond Delhi-NCR, making it pan-India. Secretaries of Animal Husbandry Departments, municipal corporations, and local bodies in all States and Union Territories were made parties to ensure compliance with the ABC Rules.
The bench stated that similar pending petitions in various High Courts may be transferred to the Supreme Court to formulate a uniform national policy.
On 27 October 2025, the Court summoned Chief Secretaries of all States and UTs, except West Bengal and Telangana, for failing to file affidavits on implementing the ABC Rules. On October 31, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested that the Chief Secretaries be allowed to appear virtually. The Court, however, refused, expressing displeasure at the states’ lack of compliance.
Justice Nath’s bench remarked that the Court was compelled to resolve issues that should have been addressed by local and state authorities. “The Chief Secretaries sat on the Court’s order and did not show respect for it,” the bench observed.
Next Steps
All states and union territories have been directed to file compliance reports within eight weeks, outlining mechanisms developed to enforce the fencing, animal relocation, and inspection requirements. The Court made it clear that failure to act will invite personal liability for senior officials.
The suo motu matter will be taken up again after the reports are filed.
(Source: LiveLaw)
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
