SUPREME COURT’S APPROACH TO STRAY DOG MANAGEMENT: A CAUTIOUS STEP FORWARD
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark Judgment in the suo moto case titled In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” (Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 5 of 2025) addressing the contentious issue of stray dog management in India. This ruling by the Three Judge Bench comprising of Justice Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, represents a significant judicial intervention in balancing public safety concerns with animal welfare considerations, modifying earlier harsh directives that had sparked nationwide protests from animal rights activists.
Factual Background of the Case
The case originated from a suo moto cognizance taken by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in July, 2025. The cognizance was based on a news report published in The Times of India about a six-year-old girl who died of rabies after a dog attack in Delhi. The alarming statistics presented a grim picture – India recorded approximately 37,15,713 dog bite cases in 2024, with the country accounting for 36% of global rabies deaths.
Initially, on August 11, 2025, the two-judge bench issued stringent directions requiring authorities in Delhi-NCR to round up all stray dogs and relocate them to designated shelters within eight weeks. Crucially, the Order prohibited the release of these dogs back onto streets after sterilization and immunization, mandating their permanent confinement in shelters. The Court had also threatened contempt proceedings against any individual or organization obstructing these directions.
The matter escalated when numerous NGOs and animal welfare organizations approached the Chief Justice of India, leading to the constitution of the Three-Judge Bench to reconsider the earlier order.
Contentions of Animal Welfare Organizations
Animal welfare groups and self-proclaimed “animal lovers” mounted a vigorous challenge to the August 11 Order on multiple grounds. They argued that the prohibition on releasing sterilized and immunized dogs violated Rule 11(19) of the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 (ABC Rules), which explicitly mandates that dogs be released back to the same areas from which they were captured.
The Petitioners contended that the blanket direction to permanently shelter all stray dogs was logistically impossible, given the estimated population of lakhs of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR and the inadequate shelter infrastructure. They expressed fears that approximately 700 dogs already picked up might be culled due to lack of proper facilities, effectively turning the Court’s humanitarian Order into a death sentence for the animals.
Furthermore, animal rights advocates argued that threatening contempt proceedings against those feeding stray dogs constituted a direct violation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. They emphasized that the Animal Birth Control program, based on the “capture-sterilize-vaccinate-release” model, had shown success in cities like Dehradun and Lucknow.
Government’s Position
Solicitor General, appearing for the Government, acknowledged the herculean task of managing the stray dog population. He also emphasized the State’s commitment to protecting citizens’ Fundamental Right to Life under Article 21. He presented alarming data showing over 37 lakh dog bite cases in India during 2024, with several resulting in human fatalities due to rabies infection.
The Government argued that sterilization alone was insufficient to prevent dog attacks, as immunized dogs with aggressive behaviour could still cause severe harm to vulnerable citizens, particularly children and the elderly. They further contended that the Court’s interim directions were essential protective measures that did not violate the statutory framework but rather addressed an immediate threat to public safety.
The Court’s Balanced Decision
The Bench acknowledged the salutary intent behind the original order while recognizing the need for a “balancing exercise” to ensure feasibility within the existing legal framework. The Court observed that the previous directions “too harsh” and attempting to implement such sweeping measures without evaluating existing infrastructure could create a “catch-22 situation”.
Key modifications made by the Court include:
Modified Release Policy: The Court kept the prohibition on release “in abeyance,” directing that captured dogs be sterilized, vaccinated, and released back to their original locations, except for those infected with rabies or displaying aggressive behaviour.
Designated Feeding Areas: Municipal authorities must create dedicated feeding spaces in each ward, with clear signage prohibiting street feeding. Violations will attract legal action under relevant frameworks.
Infrastructure Assessment: Authorities must file compliance affidavits detailing available resources including shelters, veterinarians, and specialized vehicles.
Financial Accountability: Individual animal lovers and NGOs must deposit Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 respectively for infrastructure development, failing which they cannot participate in further proceedings.
National Expansion: The Court expanded the case’s scope beyond Delhi-NCR to cover all states and union territories, seeking information on ABC Rules implementation nationwide.
Analysis of the Decision
The Supreme Court’s modified Order represents a pragmatic judicial approach that attempts to reconcile competing interests. By acknowledging the scientific basis of Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules 2023, which serves to prevent shelter overcrowding while ensuring compassionate treatment of animals, the Court demonstrated sensitivity to established animal welfare protocols.
The Judgment recognizes that aggressive sterilization can indeed reduce stray dog populations over time, but only under ideal implementation conditions that currently don’t exist. The Court’s emphasis on creating proper infrastructure before implementing wholesale capture programs shows judicial wisdom in avoiding unintended consequences. The financial penalties imposed on intervening parties reflect the Court’s frustration with what it perceives as misplaced priorities in animal advocacy.
Concluding Remarks
The Supreme Court’s modified approach, while more balanced than its initial stringent directive, leaves one with conflicting feelings about this complex urban challenge. On one hand, the Decision deserves appreciation for its attempt to harmonize constitutional rights – both the fundamental right to life and safety for citizens under Article 21, and the constitutional duty toward animal welfare under Article 51A(g).
The Court’s recognition of practical limitations and scientific evidence supporting the capture-sterilize-release model demonstrates judicial maturity. Cities like Dehradun and Lucknow have indeed shown that sustained ABC programs can effectively reduce stray populations without permanent removal. The decision to expand the matter nationally also indicates comprehensive policy thinking rather than ad-hoc regional solutions.
The prohibition on street feeding and creation of designated feeding areas is a welcome middle ground, though enforcement challenges remain significant. The financial penalties on NGOs and individuals, while ensuring accountability, may also discourage genuine animal welfare efforts and could be seen as punitive rather than constructive.
YASH HARI DIXIT
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Editor’s Comments
The Court’s intervention, though necessary given the humanitarian crisis, also highlights the failure of executive authorities to proactively address this long-standing urban challenge through comprehensive policy frameworks and implementation mechanisms.
However, concerns remain about the adequacy of this measured approach in addressing immediate public safety threats. With over 10,000 dog bites occurring daily across India and 36% of global rabies deaths happening in the country, the urgency of the crisis perhaps demands more decisive action. The modified Order, while scientifically sound, may not provide immediate relief to vulnerable populations, particularly children and elderly citizens who continue to face daily risks in public spaces.
Ultimately, this Judgment reflects the inherent tension in urban India between rapid development, public health imperatives, and evolving animal welfare consciousness. While the Court has charted a more humane and legally sound course than its initial order, the real test lies in effective implementation by civic authorities who have historically struggled with even basic municipal services. The success of this balanced approach will depend on sustained political will, adequate resource allocation, and community cooperation – elements that have been conspicuously absent in India’s decades-long struggle with stray dog management.
SUSHILA RAM VARMA
Advocate and Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Videos, titled “Air India Plane Crash in Ahmedabad: What Happened? | Legal Analysis | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at the Link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azYUBkke9jI