The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 19, 2026) refused to modify its November 7, 2025 order directing all States and Union Territories to ensure the removal of stray dogs from high-footfall public institutions, including educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots, and railway stations, while clarifying that such dogs cannot be released back into these areas even after sterilisation.
Stray dogs at the centre of a growing social divide
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria dismissed all applications seeking modification of its earlier directions and also rejected challenges to the 2025 standard operating procedure framed by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), pointing to the “alarming” rise in dog-bite incidents across the country.
“Right to life with dignity encompasses the right to live freely without the threat of a dog-bite attack. The State cannot remain a passive spectator,” the Bench observed.
The court said there had been a “discernible absence of efforts” on the part of States to augment sterilisation and vaccination infrastructure in compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
“Sterilisation and vaccination drives have taken place without planning. This defeats the very object of the framework. Had the States acted with due foresight, the present situation would not have assumed such alarming proportions,” the Bench added.
Euthanasia for ‘rabid and dangerous’ dogs
The Bench directed all States and Union territories to undertake “decisive measures” to strengthen implementation of the ABC regime and ensure that every district has at least one functional Animal Birth Control centre staffed with trained personnel and equipped with adequate sterilisation and vaccination facilities.
Dogs and laws: On street dogs and the Supreme Court order
The Bench also permitted authorities to adopt measures permissible in law, “including euthanasia in case of rabid and dangerous dogs”, to mitigate threats posed to human life.
Notably, the court directed that FIRs or coercive action should ordinarily not be initiated against municipal officials or authorities acting in implementation of its directions, unless allegations of mala fides or illegality are apparent on the face of the record.
“Officials of municipal authorities, States, entrusted with implementation of directions of this court shall be entitled to due protection in the acts performed by them,” the Bench said, adding that High Courts could exercise their jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings initiated unjustifiably against designated officials.
Liability for non-compliance
The court further directed all High Courts across the country to commence suo motu proceedings for overseeing compliance with its August and November 2025 directions. Chief Secretaries of the States have been directed to file status reports before the respective High Courts, while consolidated compliance reports are to be placed before the apex court in November this year.
The Bench also referred to data indicating that 1,084 dog-bite incidents were reported in a single month in Sri Ganganagar in Rajasthan, while Tamil Nadu recorded more than two lakh such cases in the first four months of the year.
“Any non-compliance with the directions of this court shall be viewed seriously. Contempt proceedings, disciplinary proceedings and tortious liability shall be initiated against States for non-compliance,” it cautioned.
The suo motu proceedings were initiated last year in July amid mounting public concern over a spate of dog-bite incidents, including the death of a six-year-old girl. This had earlier prompted a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan to direct the mass capture, without release, of stray dogs across Delhi and neighbouring districts.
The directive, however, drew sharp criticism from animal welfare groups, which warned that such measures would amount to cruelty and violate statutory mandates. Subsequently, in a rare administrative move, the then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai withdrew the matter from Justice Pardiwala’s Bench and reassigned it to a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Nath.
Subsequently, in November, a Bench headed by Justice Nath had ordered States and Union territories to identify all government and private educational and healthcare institutions, transport hubs and sports complexes, and ensure that their premises were secured against stray dog intrusion.
The Bench had also called for awareness drives in schools, compulsory availability of anti-rabies vaccines in hospitals, and the formulation of uniform standard operating procedures by the AWBI.
Published – May 19, 2026 11:29 am IST
