The apex court directed that local bodies must conduct periodic inspections to ensure that no stray dog habitat exists in such premises.
Published Nov 07, 2025 | 12:14 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 07, 2025 | 12:14 PM
Representational image of stray dogs. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court ordered that every educational institution, hospital, public sports complexes, bus stand and depots, railway stations, etc must be fenced properly to prevent the entry of stray dogs. The court said that it will be the responsibility of the local self-government institutions to pick up stray dogs and shift them to designated dog shelters after vaccination and sterilisation.
Pointing to the “alarming rise of dog-bite incidents”, the Supreme Court on Friday, 7 November, ordered that every educational institution, hospital, public sports complexes, bus stand and depots, railway stations, etc must be fenced properly to prevent the entry of stray dogs.
The court said that it will be the responsibility of the local self-government institutions to pick up stray dogs from such institutions and areas, and shift them to designated dog shelters after vaccination and sterilisation in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
It ordered that stray dogs picked up from these areas must not be released to the same spot from which they were picked up. “Permitting the same would frustrate the very purpose of liberating such institutions from the presence of stray dogs,” the court observed.
The order was pronounced by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria in the suo motu stray dogs matter. The apex court directed that local bodies must conduct periodic inspections to ensure that no stray dog habitat exists in such premises.
Even though senior advocates made submissions, including that new ones might occupy the spots from which dogs are removed, the court refused to entertain such matters.
Further, the court passed directions for the removal of stray cattle and other animals from roads and highways. The court affirmed the directions issued by the Rajasthan High Court for the removal of stray cattle and other animals from highways and expressways.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan took suo motu cognisance of the stray dog issue based on a Times of India report titled “In a city hounded by strays, kids pay price” on 28 July.
The court had on 22 October directed all states and Union Territories, Secretaries of the Animal Husbandry department, Secretaries of local bodies and municipal corporations to ensure compliance with the ABC Rules. The bench also said that it will transfer to the Supreme Court similar petitions pending in high courts to formulate a national policy on the issue.
On 27 October, the Court summoned Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories, except West Bengal and Telangana, for not filing affidavits regarding the steps taken by them to implement the ABC Rules.
Even though Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter on 31 October, requesting the Court to allow the Chief Secretaries to appear virtually and exempt their personal appearance, it was not allowed.
On 11 August, the bench expressed serious concerns about the menace and directed Delhi government authorities to relocate the dogs to shelters while barring their release. The bench ordered the authorities in the National Capital Territory of Delhi to immediately start picking up stray dogs from all localities and shift them to dog shelters. The directions also extended to Noida, Gurugram and Ghaziabad.
Later, on 13 August, the suo motu case was shifted to a three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath, after some lawyers mentioned before CJI BR Gavai that those directions were in conflict with the previous orders passed by other benches.
On 22 August, the three-judge bench stayed the directions issued by the Justice Pardiwala-led bench and opined: “Direction given in the order dated 11th August, 2025, prohibiting the release of the treated and vaccinated dogs seems to be too harsh”.
Based on Rule 11(9) of the ABC Rules, the bench clarified that stray dogs, which are picked up, must be released back to the same area from where they were picked up, after sterilisation, deworming and immunisation, except those dogs which are infected with rabies, suspected to be infected with rabies or are exhibiting aggressive behaviour.
The bench also ordered a prohibition on public feeding of stray dogs and directed the creation of dedicated feeding spaces. The bench also expanded the scope of the matter beyond Delhi-NCR and extended it throughout India.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
