This Article is written by Aishwarya Jain of DES’s Shri Navalmal Firodia
Law College, Pune.
The National Capital Region (NCR), particularly Delhi, has recently had to deal with an
increase in stray dogs, which has led to a rise in dog bite incidences and, regrettably, rabies
cases. This hazardous environment immediately affects the fundamental right to life and a
safe environment under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly for vulnerable populations
like children. Current animal welfare rules, such the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, were
developed concurrently to ensure the humane care and management of the stray population.
The permanent removal or killing of stray animals was expressly prohibited by these statutes.
The Supreme Court of India ordered municipal organizations to remove stray dogs from
public areas like schools, hospitals, and transit hubs in 2025 after taking suo motu (on its
own) notice of media reports of frequent assaults. Animal welfare organizations and local
volunteers opposed what they perceived as harsh measures against street dogs, while others
praised more stringent safety measures. The orders sparked a heated public debate.
- Initial direction (early August 2025):
Municipal and state authorities throughout Delhi-NCR were strongly instructed by a two-
judge bench to apprehend stray dogs, sterilize, vaccinate, and relocate them to shelters
(pounds) rather than releasing them back onto the streets. The Bench gave strict timelines and
told authorities to set up shelters and monitoring systems. This order came after several
reported attacks and was framed as an urgent public-safety measure
The forthwith removal of all stray dogs was from certain key institutional premises that
include:
Educational Institutions: Schools and colleges.
Hospitals: Government and private medical facilities.
Sports Complexes
Bus Stands and Depots
Railway Stations
The Court has stated unequivocally that dogs removed from these high-traffic, high-risk areas
must be vaccinated and sterilized before being placed in a designated shelter. Importantly, the
order appears to support the permanent confinement of these particular dogs in shelters by
superseding the traditional ABC Rules’ “release back to the same locality” clause.
- Review and modification (later August 2025):
A larger Bench examined the matter, heard interventions from animal-rights groups and other
parties, and modified the earlier directions. The modified order emphasised that dogs which
are sterilised, vaccinated and not aggressive are generally to be released back into their
locality, in line with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules, while also insisting on better
sterilisation drives, vaccination, monitoring, and special handling for truly aggressive or rabid
animals. The Court found parts of the initial “no release” direction too harsh and adjusted the
approach to balance public safety and animal welfare.
At the same time, the judgment issues a stark warning against any attempt to obstruct the
lawful rounding-up of stray dogs, stating that the strictest action, including contempt of court
proceedings, will be taken against the misbehaving parties. This also extends to directing that
stray cattle be cleared from highways, indicating a broader push for public and commuter
safety.
These changes show the Court attempting to balance two important public interests: (a) safety
of people (especially children and the elderly) and (b) humane treatment and conservation
principles that guide animal-welfare laws.
CASE LAWS AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS
Supreme Court’s orders are not just administrative instructions, they reflect the Court’s
attempt to give immediate directions where authorities were found wanting. The orders also
tested the boundary between judicial urgency and statutory procedures already in place.
Following are some Case Laws and Legal Developments that strengthens the Court’s
mandate:
- Foundation of Animal Rights: Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) vs.A. Nagaraja
and Ors. (2014)
This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court famously extended the ‘Right to Life’ under
Article 21 to animals, stating that they have a right to live with intrinsic worth, honour, and
dignity, even though they are not ‘persons’ in the constitutional sense.
This case established the groundwork for the humane treatment of animals and firmly
established that an animal’s right to life is violated by cruelty, abuse, or needless suffering.
This decision upholds both the basic obligation of compassion to all living things under
Article 51A(g) and the spirit of the ABC Rules. - The ‘No Relocation’ mandate and the ABC Rules: Animal Birth Control (Dogs)
Rules, 2001 (replaced by 2023 Rules)
Stray dog management is governed by the ABC Rules, 2023. They insist that vaccination and
animal birth control (sterilization) are the only legitimate and scientific methods of
population control.
The most important clause in this case is that a dog that has been vaccinated and sterilized
must be returned to its original location. The idea is that long-term population control is
ensured because a sterilized dog maintains its territory and keeps unsterilized dogs from
migrating into the area. - The 1960 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
The Act is the main national law that supports the ABC rules and mandates the humane
treatment of animals. The goal of every action must be to prevent needless suffering for
animals.
WHY DID THE ORDERS SPARK CONTROVERSY?
- Animal welfare vs public safety:
The initial direction to not release treated dogs alarmed animal lovers and NGOs who said
the ABC Rules require release back into locality after treatment — pulling dogs out
permanently can increase suffering and population problems elsewhere. The modified order
recognised this tension. - Implementation capacity:
Critics pointed out civic bodies lacked shelter space, steady NGO funding, and staff to
sterilise and vaccinate at the scale the Court demanded. Reports later showed municipalities
moving to clear pending payments to NGO ABC centres and planning more shelters, an issue
the Court had highlighted. - Emotion and media:
Stray dogs are culturally embedded in many neighbourhoods. Photos, social-media
campaigns and protests made the topic highly visible and personal, pushing courts and
governments into a public-politics stage.
CONCLUSION
The stray-dogs episode is an example of the judiciary stepping into an urgent civic problem
when authorities were perceived to be failing. The Supreme Court’s initial tough order reflected deep concern for human safety; the subsequent modification showed judicial willingness to correct course after hearing animal-welfare voices and recognizing statutory
rules. However, the order throws up massive logistical and legal challenges. From a legal perspective, the order is a direct clash with the core ‘release back’ principle of the ABC Rules, 2023. While the Supreme Court’s word is law, animal welfare activists are already alleging that the order, particularly the SOP released by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) in its wake, effectively sanctions the dislocation of dogs, which is a violation of the rules. The legal battle is, therefore, likely to continue on the grounds of shelter capacity and the manner of removal and housing. The court’s intent is noble, but the successful implementation hinges entirely on the political will and financial commitment of the state and local governments. In conclusion, the Supreme Court has issued a necessary, but complex, verdict. It has rightly prioritized the fundamental right to safety, but it has simultaneously placed an unprecedented
burden of compliance on the government.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. How does this order conflict with the ABC Rules, 2023?
The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 state that sterilised and vaccinated dogs must
be returned to their original territory. The SC order, for dogs removed from sensitive public
spaces, mandates permanent confinement in a shelter, thus overriding the ‘release back’ rule
in this specific context.
2. Did the Supreme Court order mass killing of stray dogs?
No. The orders focused on capture, sterilisation, vaccination, record-keeping and, initially,
relocation. After review the Court modified its direction to align more closely with ABC
rules that require release of treated dogs back into their locality, except in specific
circumstances (e.g., truly rabid or permanently aggressive animals).4
3. Is feeding stray dogs now illegal?
No, feeding stray dogs is not illegal. The Supreme Court’s focus is on removal from
institutional premises. However, courts have previously affirmed that while the right to feed
exists, it must be done responsibly and in designated spots to avoid causing a nuisance or
safety hazard.
4. What can citizens do if they see a dangerous dog?
Report to local municipal dog squads or police, avoid direct confrontation, and share clear
location details. Many municipalities also maintain NGO lists engaged in ABC work; civic
follow-up helps push authorities to act.
References
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/41706/41706_2025_8_31_63158_Order_11-Aug-2025.pdf
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/41706/41706_2025_3_1501_63567_Judgement_22-Aug-2025.pdf
