The much awaited judgment on stray dogs was delivered  by a bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Vikram Nath along with Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria. The Court has authorised authorities to resort to euthanasia of rabid and dangerously aggressive dogs when necessary to protect human life.

Court allows strict action on dangerous dogs/refuses to change earlier orders on stray dogs:

The Court, while looking at serious reports of rising dog-bite cases—especially affecting children and elderly people—refused to change its earlier orders. These earlier orders said that stray dogs must be removed from places like schools, bus stands, railway stations, sports complexes, hospitals, and similar public places.

The Court said:
 “Authorities may, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control rules and other applicable statutory protocols, take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia in cases involving incurably ill, rabid or demonstrably dangerous/aggressive dogs to effectively cure the threat posed to human life and safety,” the bench ordered.

Dogs not to be returned to same areas:

It also said that dogs caught from public places must not be sent back to the same locations after vaccination or sterilisation.

The Court also gave a full set of further directions for States and Union Territories:

• States and UTs must take strong and time-bound steps to improve and expand the Animal Birth Control (ABC) system infrastructure.
• Each district must have at least one fully working ABC centre with proper infrastructure, trained staff, surgery facilities and support systems.
• Depending on population and size of each district, States must decide to increase the number of ABC centres.
• States and UTs must fully implement the earlier directions (removal of dogs from public places) in both letter and spirit, without any delay or weakening.
• Authorities must also decide whether to extend these directions to other public places with high footfall and public use, including places of public gathering and transit, based on ground realities, risk to public safety and the nature of such places.
• Full capacity building must be done, including training of staff, improving veterinary services, strengthening shelter facilities, and running vaccination drives with coordination of relevant departments.
• States and UTs must ensure enough availability of anti-rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin in all government hospitals and must create an effective public health system to handle dog bite cases.
• NHAI, in coordination with States and UTs, must create and implement a time-bound system to deal with stray and other animals on national highways and expressways. This includes deploying special transport vehicles for safe capture and relocation of animals, creating or marking proper holding and shelter facilities, and making arrangements with animal welfare organisations for safe handling and relocation.
• Authorities may, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control rules and other applicable statutory protocols, take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia in cases involving incurably ill, rabid or demonstrably dangerous/aggressive dogs to effectively cure the threat posed to human life and safety,
• Officers who are responsible for implementing these directions will be protected for actions taken in good faith and while doing official duties. No FIR or criminal case shall normally be started against them for bonafide actions taken to follow these court orders, except where there is a prima facie case of malafide intent or serious misuse of power.
• For monitoring and compliance, High Courts are directed to register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus to supervise implementation of these directions. High Courts can also expand or adjust these directions as needed based on local conditions and needs, without reducing or changing the main intent of the Supreme Court directions.

High Courts to monitor compliance:

The Court further said that the High Courts concerned can take steps including contempt proceedings against officials who do not follow these orders or who ignore them.

Case Details: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 (and connected cases)