In a landmark move responding to the alarming surge in dog-bite incidents, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice  NV Anjaria issued sweeping directives aimed at safeguarding public spaces. The Court ordered that every educational institution, hospital, public sports complex, bus stand, depot, railway station, and similar premises must be properly fenced to prevent stray dogs from entering. 

Local self-government bodies are now tasked with picking up stray dogs from these areas and shifting them to designated shelters after vaccination and sterilization, strictly in line with the Animal Birth Control Rules.

The Court emphasized, “Permitting the same would frustrate the very purpose of liberating such institutions from the presence of stray dogs,” and made it clear that dogs picked up from these locations must not be released back to the same spot.

The bench also mandated periodic inspections by local authorities to ensure that no stray dog habitats persist within these premises. Despite appeals from Senior Advocates Anand Grover and Karuna Nundy, who argued that removing dogs would only lead to new ones occupying the vacated spots, the Court declined to reconsider its order. 

 The Court further directed the removal of stray cattle and other animals from roads and expressways, affirming earlier directions from the Rajasthan High Court. “A joint coordinated drive shall be undertaken to immediately remove all such animals found on highways/roadways/expressways, including cattle,” the Court stated, instructing that these animals be shifted to goshalas or shelter homes.

 Chief Secretaries of all states and Union Territories have been directed  to ensure strict compliance, with officers to be  held personally responsible for lapses. A status report on the mechanism developed to implement these directions must be filed within eight weeks.

Background:

This order follows a series of developments that began on July 28, when a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan took suo motu cognizance of the stray dog menace after a Times of India report highlighted children being attacked by strays in Delhi. 

On August 11, the bench expressed grave concern over dog bites and rabies, directing authorities in Delhi, Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad to relocate stray dogs to shelters and barring their release. The Court also warned of legal consequences for anyone obstructing these efforts and allowed for the creation of a dedicated force for the task. 

However, on August 13, the case was assigned  to a three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath due to concerns about conflicting orders from previous benches. After hearing arguments, the new bench stayed the August 11 order on August 22, observing that “direction given in the order dated 11th August, 2025, prohibiting the release of the treated and vaccinated dogs seems to be too harsh.” Citing Rule 11(9) of the ABC Rules, the bench clarified that sterilized, dewormed, and immunized dogs should be released back to their original area, except those infected with rabies or showing aggressive behavior.

The bench also banned public feeding of stray dogs and directed the creation of dedicated feeding spaces, while reiterating that no individual or organization should obstruct municipal authorities from carrying out their duties under the ABC Rules. 

The scope of the matter was expanded to cover the entire country, with all states and Union Territories, along with relevant departmental secretaries, made parties to  the proceedings to ensure compliance. The Court further indicated its intention to transfer similar petitions pending in High Courts to the Supreme Court to formulate a national policy. 

On October 27, the Court summoned Chief Secretaries from all states and Union Territories—except West Bengal and Telangana—for failing to file compliance affidavits regarding the implementation of the ABC Rules. When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought virtual appearances and exemption from personal attendance, the bench refused, expressing displeasure at the lack of respect shown by state authorities toward the Court’s directives.

Case Detail: IN RE : 'CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE', SMW(C) No. 5/2025