The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to modify its November 2025 order directing the removal of stray dogs from public institutions and spaces such as hospitals, schools, colleges, bus stations and railway stations, saying it could not remain “blind to harsh realities”.
Defending its earlier direction, the top court observed that incidents involving stray dog attacks had become a serious public safety concern, particularly for children and senior citizens. The bench noted that young children had been mauled, elderly people attacked and even foreign tourists affected in several incidents reported across the country.
In its landmark November 7, 2025 order, the Supreme Court directed local authorities to remove stray dogs from institutional areas such as schools, hospitals, educational campuses, sports complexes, railway stations and bus stands. The court also warned against releasing the dogs back into these areas after vaccinating and sterilising them, directing instead that they be relocated to designated shelters.
With regard to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, the court suspended the “Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release” (CSVR) model for high-footfall areas such as schools, hospitals and transit hubs, among others.
Refusing to modify its earlier order, the court today remarked that a “Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest” appeared to be operating on the ground, with vulnerable sections of society left to fend for themselves in the absence of effective state action.
It stressed that children and the elderly could not be left to deal with such threats alone and said governments were duty-bound to ensure the protection of life and public safety. The bench refused to recall or dilute its earlier order on shifting stray dogs from public places to shelters.
Most importantly, the Supreme Court also pointed out that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 encompasses “the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical attack or exposure to life-threatening events such as dog bites in public areas.”
“The state cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate in the face of statutory mechanism specifically designed to address them,” the bench further observed.
The court pointed out that the recurrence of such incidents showed there were serious gaps in the implementation of directions.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
– Ends
