Balancing Public Safety and Animal Welfare: Supreme Court’s Evolving Jurisprudence on Stray Dog Management in India

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has been grappling with one of the most contentious public interest litigations in recent times concerning stray dog management, seeking to balance the fundamental rights of citizens to life and safety against the constitutional duty of compassion towards animals. In January 2026, animal welfare organizations including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India urged the apex court to permit the release of stray dogs at their place of capture after sterilization and vaccination [1]. This plea came during ongoing hearings where the court examined applications seeking modification of its November 2025 order that prohibited the release of captured dogs from institutional premises back to their original locations. The case has evolved through multiple judicial pronouncements, reflecting the court’s struggle to reconcile public safety concerns with humane animal management principles enshrined in Indian law.

The Legal Framework Governing Stray Dog Management

The legislative foundation for stray dog management in India rests primarily on two pillars: the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. The 1960 Act established the Animal Welfare Board of India and prohibited unnecessary cruelty to animals, creating a statutory framework that recognizes animals as sentient beings deserving protection from suffering [2]. Under this Act, the killing of stray dogs is permitted only through prescribed humane methods in lethal chambers, and the Act explicitly prohibits unnecessary pain during any procedure involving animals. The Act defines cruelty broadly to include beating, torturing, overloading, confining animals in inadequate spaces, abandoning animals, and failing to provide sufficient food, water, or shelter.

Building upon this foundation, the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, notified under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act through Government notification GSR 193(E) dated March 10, 2023, superseded the earlier 2001 Rules [3]. These Rules mandate that local authorities conduct Animal Birth Control programs through sterilization and immunization rather than culling. The 2023 Rules use the term “community animals” instead of “stray dogs,” recognizing that these animals are territorial beings belonging to their local environments rather than ownerless intruders. Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules specifically requires that dogs must be released back in the same area from where they are picked up after being sterilized, vaccinated, and dewormed, except where experts specifically advise otherwise.

The Rules place responsibility for ABC implementation on local authorities including municipalities, municipal corporations, and panchayats. They mandate the formation of monitoring committees at central, state, and local levels to oversee program implementation. Local authorities must provide adequate facilities at ABC centers including kennels, mobile operating theaters, vehicles for dog capture and transportation, and maintain detailed records updated daily. The Rules also establish a detention period of four days for captured dogs, recognizing that prolonged confinement in small spaces may amount to cruelty.

The Genesis of Judicial Intervention

The current litigation traces its roots to two distinct timelines. The foundational case, Animal Welfare Board of India versus People for Elimination of Stray Troubles, was initiated through Special Leave Petition (Civil) Number 691 of 2009. In its November 18, 2015 order, the Supreme Court emphasized that municipal corporations and local bodies must be guided by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the ABC Rules [4]. The court held that local authorities have a sacrosanct duty to provide sufficient dog pounds, animal shelters, dog vans with trained catchers, mobile sterilization centers, and proper infrastructure. Importantly, the court stated that it is the duty and obligation of the Animal Welfare Board to ensure these provisions are followed with seriousness, and that a balance between compassion to dogs and the lives of human beings must harmoniously coexist.

The current suo motu proceedings began on July 28, 2025, when a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan took cognizance of a Times of India news report titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” [5]. The report detailed the death of six-year-old Chavi Sharma in Delhi’s Pooth Kalan area following a stray dog attack, after which she succumbed to rabies. The bench noted alarming statistics showing approximately twenty thousand dog bite cases occurring in India, with two thousand incidents happening in Delhi alone daily. Another incident involving four-year-old Abhishek Rai, who was attacked by a pack of stray dogs on July 23, 2025, in Delhi’s Alipur area, further galvanized judicial attention.

The August 2025 Directives and Subsequent Modifications

On August 11, 2025, the two-judge bench issued stringent directions mandating Delhi-NCR authorities to capture all stray dogs within eight weeks and relocate them to shelters with no possibility of release back to the streets [6]. The order required immediate creation of shelters for at least five thousand dogs equipped with CCTV monitoring, adequate staff for sterilization and vaccination, and medical care facilities. The bench warned that any individual or organization obstructing the forceful capture of stray dogs would face the strictest action. This directive cited over twenty-five thousand dog bite cases in Delhi in the preceding months and framed the issue as a violation of citizens’ rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.

The August 11 order provoked widespread protests from animal rights activists who termed it impractical, unscientific, and illegal. PETA India argued that the directive was inhumane and disrupted ecological balance, asserting that mass removal of community dogs caused suffering without addressing root causes. Recognizing the sensitivity and complexity of the matter, then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai administratively withdrew the case from the Pardiwala-Mahadevan bench and reassigned it to a three-judge bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, alongside Justices Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria.

On August 22, 2025, the three-judge bench modified the earlier directions, terming them “too harsh” and acknowledging India’s limited shelter infrastructure [7]. The bench stayed the August 11 non-release mandate and restored the statutory position mandated by ABC Rules: captured dogs must be sterilized, dewormed, vaccinated, and released back to the same localities from where they were picked up, except for dogs suffering from rabies, suspected to be rabid, or showing aggressive behavior. This marked a significant alignment with the Animal Birth Control framework and recognition of practical implementation challenges.

The August 22 order also introduced strict feeding regulations. Municipal authorities were directed to designate feeding zones in each ward with notice boards clearly stating that feeding is permitted only in such designated areas. Feeding strays on roads or other public places was prohibited, with violators facing legal proceedings. Helplines were mandated for reporting violations, with action required against both individuals and NGOs obstructing compliance. The supreme court also imposed a deposit requirement: individual petitioners must deposit twenty-five thousand rupees and each NGO two lakh rupees with the court registry to participate in proceedings, funds to be used for developing infrastructure for stray dog management.

The November 2025 Institutional Premises Order

The supreme court’s approach to stray dog management in India, as shaped by the Supreme Court, evolved further with its November 7, 2025 order, which created a specific carve-out for institutional areas while maintaining the general ABC framework for streets [8]. The order directed all states and union territories to remove stray dogs from compounds of educational institutions, hospitals (both public and private), sports complexes, bus stands and depots including inter-state bus terminals, and railway stations. Unlike the general ABC protocol, dogs captured from these institutional premises must not be released back to the same location after sterilization and vaccination but must instead be shifted to designated shelters.

The November order mandated that states conduct surveys within two weeks to identify all government and private educational institutions from where stray dogs must be removed. Each institution must appoint a nodal officer responsible for upkeep and surveillance, with inspections conducted at least once every three months to ensure no stray canine lives within or in the immediate vicinity. Adequate fencing, boundary walls, and gates must be constructed around these premises within eight weeks to prevent stray animal entry. All government and private hospitals were directed to maintain constant stocks of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin.

The order also addressed highway safety, directing the National Highways Authority of India and all transport and municipal authorities to ensure no cattle or stray animals roam highways. These animals must be relocated to suitable shelters, gaushalas, or cattle pounds with adequate care. Highway patrol units functioning around the clock were mandated, with helpline numbers prominently displayed for commuters to report stray animals or accidents. The Animal Welfare Board of India was directed to frame Standard Operating Procedures for management of stray dogs and prevention of dog bites within institutional areas within four weeks, to be implemented uniformly across the country.

The January 2026 Hearings and PETA’s Arguments

During the hearings in January 2026, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for PETA India, invoked Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules to argue that dogs should normally be released in the same area from which they are captured, except where experts advise otherwise [9]. Divan submitted that the prescribed detention period for stray dogs is four days and that confining animals for longer durations in congested shelters could amount to cruelty under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. He urged the court to consider staggered directions for capturing dogs until local monitoring committees are satisfied about infrastructure readiness, emphasizing the need for an expert committee to examine scientific considerations including territoriality and ecological balance that support releasing dogs at capture locations.

The bench, however, observed that institutional areas are fundamentally different from streets. Justice Vikram Nath articulated the court’s concern, questioning why dogs should be present on court premises or in schools, noting that it is not only dog bites but also the roaming of stray animals on roads proving dangerous and causing accidents. The court noted recent incidents including two Rajasthan High Court judges suffering accidents due to strays in the preceding twenty days, with one still recovering from spinal injuries. In one pointed observation, Justice Nath remarked that dogs can smell fear and may attack individuals who are frightened or have been bitten before, illustrating the unpredictability of canine behavior even after sterilization.

Constitutional and Humanitarian Considerations

The Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence attempts to reconcile competing constitutional imperatives. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which encompasses the right to live in a safe environment free from the threat of dog bites and rabies transmission. The supreme court has recognized that citizens, particularly children, the elderly, and vulnerable persons, cannot have their safety compromised by inadequate stray dog management. At the same time, Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to have compassion for living creatures, creating a constitutional obligation toward animal welfare.

The landmark judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India versus A. Nagaraja (2014), commonly known as the Jallikattu case, established that animal life falls within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that all living creatures including animals have inherent dignity, the right to live peacefully, and the right to protect their wellbeing. This jurisprudential foundation creates a constitutional mandate to treat animals humanely while managing public health and safety concerns.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act embodies this constitutional balance by prohibiting unnecessary cruelty while allowing for measures necessary for human welfare. The Act’s provisions permitting destruction of stray dogs only through prescribed humane methods in lethal chambers, and only when absolutely necessary, reflect this careful equilibrium. The ABC Rules operationalize this balance by mandating sterilization and vaccination as the primary population control method, recognizing that culling is both inhumane and scientifically ineffective for long-term population management.

Scientific and Public Health Perspectives

The ABC model is grounded in scientific understanding of canine population dynamics and disease control. India accounts for thirty-six percent of the world’s rabies deaths and sixty-five percent of rabies deaths in Southeast Asia. Between 2019 and 2022, India recorded approximately one hundred sixty million cases of dog bites. However, estimated rabies cases have declined by seventy-five percent between 2003 and 2023, largely attributed to widespread availability of post-exposure prophylaxis and the shift from culling to sterilization programs.

The scientific rationale for releasing sterilized dogs back to their territories stems from understanding territorial behavior. When dogs are removed from an area, the resulting vacuum is quickly filled by unsterilized dogs from surrounding areas, leading to continued population growth and potentially more aggressive territorial disputes. Sterilized dogs that are returned to their territories occupy ecological niches without reproducing, gradually reducing population over time while maintaining territorial stability. This approach, consistently implemented, has proven more effective than removal or culling in achieving sustainable population control.

The National Action Plan for Dog Mediated Rabies Elimination by 2030, drafted by the National Centre for Disease Control in association with the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying, emphasizes mass vaccination and sterilization as the pathway to rabies elimination. The plan follows recommendations of the World Health Organization and the Global Alliance of Rabies Control, adopting a One Health approach recognizing the interconnection between human health, animal health, and environmental factors.

Implementation Challenges and Infrastructure Deficits

The feasibility of the supreme court’s directives on stray dog management has emerged as a critical concern. Delhi alone has an estimated one million community dogs, while the entire National Capital Region may have substantially more. Municipal authorities currently operate only about two to three vans for dog capture in Delhi, and existing ABC centers number fewer than twenty across the capital. To comply with directives for permanent sheltering, authorities would need to create facilities capable of housing hundreds of thousands of dogs, each requiring individual kennels meeting minimum space standards, daily food and water, veterinary care, and staff supervision.

Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, representing certain interveners, highlighted that despite Animal Birth Control Rules being in force and court orders mandating implementation, a large number of states and cities have failed to execute the programs. He emphasized the absence of budgetary allocations to ensure implementation, with local authorities lacking funds, staff, and infrastructure to fulfill their statutory obligations. Several states including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, and Punjab failed to file compliance affidavits even after repeated court directions, prompting Justice Nath to warn of a “very harsh” approach toward non-compliant states.

The question of micro-chipping, which is mandatory for pet dogs under the ABC Rules to enable identification and tracking, has also arisen during hearings. When queried by the bench whether micro-chipping is actually happening, counsel acknowledged that implementation is virtually non-existent despite being a critical component of effective dog population management. Without proper identification systems, it becomes impossible to track vaccination coverage, sterilization rates, or distinguish between pet and community dogs.

The Path Forward

The Supreme Court has indicated that it will formulate a uniform national policy on stray dog management after hearing all stakeholders. By impleading all states, union territories, secretaries of animal husbandry departments, and municipal corporations, and by transferring all similar pending High Court cases to itself, the court has positioned itself to issue directions with nationwide applicability. The matter is being heard continuously, with the bench examining compliance reports, expert recommendations, and arguments from animal welfare organizations, victims of dog bites, municipal authorities, and state governments.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi cautioned the court that the stray dogs case should not culminate in a situation similar to the court’s recent Aravalli Hills ruling, which had to be stayed and reconsidered after concerns were raised about the absence of domain expertise in decision-making. He urged the court to involve domain experts while dealing with complex policy questions involving scientific and ecological considerations, warning that well-intentioned judicial intervention without scientific expertise could result in irreversible outcomes.

The supreme court’s current approach to stray dog management in India seeks to maintain public safety in high-risk institutional areas while preserving the ABC framework for general street dog populations. This bifurcated strategy recognizes that schools, hospitals, and transport hubs present unique vulnerabilities justifying stricter measures, while wholesale removal from all streets would be both impractical and scientifically counterproductive. The challenge lies in preventing the institutional carve-out from expanding informally, with municipalities labeling additional areas as restricted zones to avoid implementing the more complex sterilization-and-release protocol.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on stray dog management reflects the inherent tensions between protecting human life and maintaining compassion for animals, both of which are constitutional imperatives in India. The court’s journey from the harsh August 11 directive to the more calibrated November order and the ongoing January 2026 hearings demonstrates judicial recognition of implementation realities and scientific considerations. PETA’s plea for permitting release of dogs at their place of capture after sterilization and vaccination represents the statutory position under the Animal Birth Control Rules, grounded in decades of scientific understanding about sustainable population management.

The resolution of this litigation will determine not only the fate of millions of community dogs across India but also establish precedent for how the judiciary navigates complex policy questions involving competing constitutional values, scientific expertise, and administrative capacity. The court’s final order must balance the Article 21 rights of citizens to live safely against the Article 51A(g) duty of compassion, while remaining cognizant of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act’s mandate against unnecessary suffering. As arguments continue, stakeholders await directions that can transform urban landscapes, making public spaces safer without forsaking the constitutional and humanitarian imperative of animal welfare.

References

[1] LiveLaw. (2025, January 8). Stray Dogs Case: PETA, Animal Welfare Groups Urge Supreme Court To Permit Release Of Dogs At Place Of Capture. Retrieved from https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-stray-dogs-stray-dogs-in-hospitals-authorities-have-done-nothing-abc-rules-implementation-building-infrastructure-517989 

[2] Animal Law & Historical Center. (n.d.). The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Retrieved from https://www.animallaw.info/statute/cruelty-prevention-cruelty-animals-act-1960 

[3] Press Information Bureau, Government of India. (2023, March 10). Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 notified by Central Government. Retrieved from https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1917510 

[4] Supreme Court Cases. (2015, November 18). Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles & Ors. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourtcases.com/animal-welfare-board-of-india-v-people-for-elimination-of-stray-troubles-ors-4/ 

[5] Supreme Court Observer. (2025, August 16). Stray dog ‘menace’: Making sense of the Supreme Court’s intervention. Retrieved from https://www.scobserver.in/journal/stray-dogs-menace-making-sense-of-the-supreme-courts-intervention/ 

[6] JURIST. (2025, August 24). India Supreme Court permits release of stray dogs after vaccination, sterilization. Retrieved from https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/08/india-supreme-court-permits-release-of-stray-dogs-after-vaccination-sterilization/ 

[7] The Leaflet. (2025, August 22). Supreme Court modifies August 11 order, directs stray dogs to be released after vaccination, dedicate feeding places and formulate national policy. Retrieved from  https://theleaflet.in/leaflet-reports/supreme-court-modifies-august-11-order-directs-stray-dogs-to-be-released-after-vaccination-dedicate-feeding-places-and-formulate-national-policy 

[8] Supreme Court Observer. (2025, November 13). Supreme Court’s latest order keeps stray dog issue on a short leash. Retrieved from https://www.scobserver.in/journal/supreme-courts-latest-order-keeps-stray-dog-issue-on-a-short-leash/ 

[9] IANS Live. (2026, January 8). Stray dogs sense fear, may attack frightened individuals: SC. Retrieved from https://ianslive.in/stray-dogs-sense-fear-may-attack-frightened-individuals-sc–20260108190328