The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that it has never directed the removal of all stray dogs from public spaces, but rather insisted on strict compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules to manage the stray dog population.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria made this observation during the hearing of multiple petitions relating to the management of stray dogs across India. The bench is dealing with both sides of the spectrum — dog lovers seeking modifications to earlier orders and others urging strict implementation due to rising dog bite incidents.
“We have not directed the removal of every dog from the streets. The direction is to treat them as per the rules,” Justice Mehta stated.
The Animal Birth Control Rules mandate sterilisation, vaccination, and re-release of stray dogs in the same territory. However, the court noted with concern that many states and municipalities have failed to implement these rules, despite binding judicial orders.
Senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appointed as amicus curiae, informed the court that only four states had filed compliance affidavits recently.
Multiple senior lawyers including C U Singh, Krishnan Venugopal, Dhruv Mehta, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shyam Divan, Sidharth Luthra and Karuna Nundy presented arguments on the broader implications of abrupt removal of stray dogs and the lack of infrastructure for their rehabilitation.
C.U. Singh argued that in cities like Delhi, sudden removal of stray dogs could worsen the rodent menace. “When the rodent population goes up, we have seen very disastrous consequences,” he said. In response, Justice Mehta remarked in jest, “Dogs and cats are enemies. Cats kill rodents. So we should promote more cats.”
Singh emphasised that dog population control through sterilisation and vaccination is the only effective method and that court orders should be modulated to reflect this.
The bench raised pointed questions about the presence of stray dogs in hospitals and public institutions. “Tell us how many dogs each hospital should have roaming around in the corridors, in wards, near patient beds?” Justice Mehta asked.
Krishnan Venugopal agreed that dogs should not be present in hospitals and pointed to the lack of budgetary support for implementing the ABC Rules.
Justice Nath addressed concerns that the court was facing pressure to modify its orders, stating, “We are under no pressure. You are mistaken.”
Some lawyers highlighted the challenges faced by residents in housing complexes due to aggressive stray dogs. Others argued for the need to microchip pet dogs, establish accurate data on stray dog populations, and develop infrastructure like dog shelters.
One lawyer cited a recent incident where a pet dog was unleashed on another person, prompting the bench to observe, “Unintentionally also, if a pet goes and attacks a neighbour, that is an offence.”
The ongoing case stems from a suo motu matter initiated by the Supreme Court in July 2023, following alarming reports of fatal dog bite incidents, particularly involving children in Delhi.
On November 7, 2025, the court had directed the immediate relocation of stray dogs in institutional areas — such as hospitals, schools, and railway stations — to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination. It had also ordered that such dogs should not be released back to the same locations.
Additionally, the court directed authorities to ensure that all stray animals, including cattle, are removed from highways and expressways to prevent road accidents.
At the end of Thursday’s hearing, Justice Mehta asked the lawyers to review a December 29, 2025, Times of India report titled “On the roof of the world, feral dogs hunt down Ladakh’s rare species” and come prepared to discuss it on Friday. The bench is expected to continue hearing the matter.
The Supreme Court’s intervention follows growing concern over public safety due to stray dog bites and accidents. The suo motu proceedings seek to balance the protection of animal rights with the safety and well-being of the public.
