Stray Dogs Case|Supreme Court Says Authorities Failed To Monitor And Follow Rules
The Bench noted that while a legal framework exists, including the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules 2023, the ground reality reflects a systemic collapse of oversight.
The Supreme Court, today, remarked against the local authorities for their failure to monitor and implement statutory rules effectively, leading to an uncontrollable surge in stray animal incidents.
The Bench was hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital. On August 11, the Court had directed the State of NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to pick up all stray dogs from the localities and public places in Delhi and put them in shelter homes. Such detained dogs are not be released under any circumstances.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria remarked, "There is not much to be argued…basically what we are trying to do is to monitor that these rules, the modules, the act are strictly followed by the Authorities, which has not been done.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the applicants, Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, representing NALSAR Hyderabad, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union, with Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal.
Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal explained the massive logistical hurdles facing the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and state governments. While the NHAI has developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and identified approximately 1,400 kilometres of vulnerable highway stretches, a jurisdictional stalemate has emerged, with the NHAI claiming that the actual removal and care of animals remains the responsibility of state governments, he said. Agarwal further noted that the Court's previous mandate—to relocate animals to shelters—would require an unprecedented scale of infrastructural development and manpower that most states are currently ill-equipped to handle.
He further said that large states, including Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Punjab, failed to file affidavits in the matter. The Bench reiterated that these sensitive zones must be secured within an eight-week timeframe to prevent further dog-bite incidents, stressing that officials would be held personally accountable for any recurring lapses in their jurisdictions.
Animal rights activist Vandana Jain argued that India cannot solve the crisis without a formal census of the dog population to determine the actual need for sterilization centers and doctors. She emphasized that public kindness and "Pashu Sewa" (service to animals) are vital, even suggesting a "luxury tax" on foreign-bred dogs to encourage the adoption of indigenous breeds.
Jain, who filed a modification application, submitted, “Iss khichadi ke andr sb kuch hai, but dal-chawal nhi hai…my only submission is, when I was going through the report of the Amicus…the problem is we do not know dog population and public awareness. We cannot control the dog population, we cannot control until we know the number…We have been practicing kindness towards them and if this little bit of kindness is being practiced by each and every citizen across the country…we make it a public moment, and this problem cannot get solved till we make public a part of this campaign.”
Conversely, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta advocated for a democratic, community-based approach, suggesting that Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) should have the legal right to vote on whether stray animals are permitted within gated premises, ensuring that the safety concerns of the majority are not overridden by a small minority of residents.
Counsel representing an 80-year-old victim submitted regarding the daily dangers faced by the most vulnerable citizens. Arguing that the stray dog population—now estimated at 6.2 crore—has reached an uncontrollable tipping point, the counsel clarified that the plea was not an act of hostility toward animals but a desperate call for public safety. Central to the argument was the assertion that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules 2023 are fundamentally flawed and contrary to the parent Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, as they prioritize the "right to roam" of dogs over the "right to life" of human beings.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted, “We are here as dog lovers, as well as human beings. If one tiger is a man-eater that doesnot mean all tigers are man-eaters.”
Justice Mehta said, “Forget Tigers, what about goats, chickens?”
Sibal said, “I have stopped eating chicken for that…I cannot imagine to consume chicken when they are caged and slaughtered in that fashion. It has an impact on us.”
Sibal further added, “We are here for the solution, what is the most appropriate scientific solution that will eliminate the problem of dog bites?”
Sibal urged the Court to view the issue through a scientific and compassionate lens rather than an adversarial one. He emphasized that the only sustainable solution lies in the rigorous implementation of the globally recognized CSVR model (Capture, Sterilize, Vaccinate, and Release), which focuses on long-term population control and public health.
Sibal highlighted the potential dangers of mass sheltering, warning that housing rabid and healthy dogs in the same confined space would lead to a catastrophic spread of the virus, exacerbating the very crisis the Court seeks to solve. He added that the CSVR model has effectively brought dog populations down to near-zero levels in certain regions, including parts of Uttar Pradesh.
Vikram Nath said, “It is not only being bitten by the dog; if you cycle on the road, what about that? There is also a threat for accidents safety…”
Sibal replied, “Not every dog does it.”
Nath said, “How do you identify it? Can you identify which dog is in which mood in the morning?... The fault is on the part of the Municipal Corporation, local bodies having not acted according to the ABC rules.”
Adding a statistical perspective, Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, representing NALSAR Hyderabad, highlighted the staggering logistical burden of the Court's fencing mandate. He pointed out that with over 15 lakh educational institutions in India, the cost and infrastructure required for fencing and shelters are prohibitive, especially for schools that currently lack basic sanitation and hand-washing facilities.
Venugopal and Sibal both urged the Court to constitute an expert committee of domain specialists to provide a scientific pathway for management, arguing that statutory rules requiring the return of dogs to their original locations cannot be ignored.
The court also heard from Senior Advocates Colin Gonsalves, Anand Grover, and C.U. Singh, who advocated for the role of "feeders" and community oversight. Gonsalves described the "hysteria" surrounding dog bites, noting that while bites are frequent, actual rabies deaths in cities like Delhi have been recorded at zero in recent years due to effective vaccination. He warned that mass impounding in pathetic shelter conditions is "hazardous" and argued that community feeders, who are often harassed for their work, are actually the ones maintaining public safety. Grover cited campuses like IIT Bombay and Delhi University as success stories where sterilized, resident dogs coexist peacefully with humans under structured oversight.
However, a Petitioner in Person, who presented the Court with a photograph of a 90-year-old victim killed by dog bites. The petitioner pointed to Japan’s "dream box" system—where strays are sheltered for adoption or euthanized—as a reason for their zero-rabies status since 1950.
The Bench, while acknowledging the scientific arguments regarding the vacuum effect, remained concerned about the immediate presence of animals in sensitive areas like hospitals and courts, even referencing a recent incident where a lawyer was severely bitten within the Gujarat High Court premises.
The matter has been kept as part-heard and will continue tomorrow.
Background
The Court, on August 22, had partially modified its previous order directing the capture and shifting of dogs from the streets in Delhi NCR. The Three Judges Bench directed that the stray dogs that will be picked up shall be sterilized, vaccinated and released back to the same area from which they were picked up. However, stray-dogs inflicted with rabies or with aggressive behaviour were not to be released into the streets. The court has also proposed to expand the scope of this matter beyond the confines of New Delhi and the NCR region.
While responding to a Petitioner in the stray dogs case who objected to some Rules framed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC), saying 'inhuman' treatment was being meted out to them, the Supreme Court had said that a video will be played in the next hearing, "asking you what is humanity".
On November 7, taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog bite incidents within institutional areas like educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the Apex Court had directed the forthwith relocation of stray canines to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.
Previously, while hearing the Suo-Moto Writ Petition on the issue of dog-bites reported in Delhi and the areas on the outskirts, has urged genuine stray dog lovers to take care and upkeep of the stray dogs responsibly at the dog shelters or pounds. The Court urged thus while directing the State of NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to pick up all stray dogs from the localities and public places in Delhi and put them in shelter homes.
Cause Title: In Re: City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh [SMW(C) No. 5/2025 Diary No. 41706/2025]