The Supreme Court resumed hearing the stray dog attack case, flagging rising dog bite incidents, highway accidents, and public safety risks, while stressing humane, scientific solutions balancing animal welfare and human lives.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday resumed hearing a crucial suo motu case on the stray dog menace, addressing rising concerns over public safety, dog bite incidents, and animal welfare policies. The Bench recalled its earlier directions requiring States and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to remove stray animals from highways and fence schools, colleges, and hospitals within eight weeks.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard the arguments today.
The Court said, during the proceeding:
“We will hear everyone — the victims, the haters, the lovers.”
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Case | Will Play Video, Ask You What Is Humanity: Supreme Court To Petitioner
The Bench examined a status report submitted by Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal, who informed the Court that NHAI has prepared a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and identified 1,400 km of highway stretches as vulnerable to stray animal movement.
However, the Court expressed serious concern over the lack of implementation:
- States were expected to act after identification
- NHAI itself can take preventive steps like fencing and cordoning
- In the last 20 days, two sitting judges met with accidents caused by stray animals, one suffering spinal injuries
“This is extremely serious,”
the Bench remarked.
The Court noted that States were directed to file compliance affidavits, but only 10 affidavits had been compiled so far.
The amicus curiae informed the Bench that while around ten compliance affidavits have been compiled so far, several States have failed to submit their responses. The Court was told that major States such as Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Punjab remain in default despite clear directions. Even some smaller States, including Sikkim, have not complied with the Supreme Court’s orders, raising concerns over the seriousness with which the issue is being addressed by State authorities.
The Amicus highlighted that Court orders require stray dogs and cattle to be shifted to shelters, but this demands significant infrastructure and manpower.
The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) has suggested:
- Sterilising male dogs first to curb population growth
- Scaling up shelters and veterinary services
Animal rights activist Vandana Jain identified two fundamental issues:
- Unchecked dog population
- Absence of reliable data
“Without knowing how many dogs exist, you cannot plan sterilisation centres, vets or shelters,”
she said.
Jain emphasised that kindness alone cannot resolve the stray dog crisis. She said the situation requires large-scale sterilisation programmes, active public participation, and a stronger sense of citizen responsibility towards animal welfare to ensure any solution is sustainable and effective.
She also suggested imposing a higher luxury tax on foreign-bred dogs to encourage adoption of Indian breeds.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted the need for balance between animal welfare and public safety.
Key submissions:
- Compassion must extend to all animals, not just dogs
- Whether dogs should roam in gated communities should be decided democratically by Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs)
- One group’s preferences cannot override the majority
“If 90% residents object and 10% insist, community interest must prevail. We live in a democratic setup.”
Appearing for an 80-year-old dog bite victim, counsel clarified that the issue is not opposition to animals, but the growing threat to public safety.
Key concerns raised:
- An estimated 6.2 crore stray dogs nationwide
- The situation has become unmanageable
- Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules allegedly contradict the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
- Need to extend the Supreme Court’s 7 November directions to gated residential complexes
- Lack of accountability for NGOs handling rabies vaccine cold-chain norms (2–8°C)
An incident involving a lawyer bitten by stray dogs inside the Gujarat High Court campus was also brought to the Court’s attention, with an application proposed.
Dr Anurupa, appearing as a party-in-person, told the Supreme Court that there is no reliable or credible national data on dog bite incidents. She pointed out that even minor scratches are frequently recorded as dog bite cases, which, according to her, leads to inflated and misleading figures being circulated in public discourse.
Drawing comparisons with the Netherlands and Singapore, she explained that both countries have zero stray dogs, achieved without euthanasia.
When the Bench asked how many stray dogs exist there, she replied:
“There are none.”
The Court acknowledged her concern regarding misleading media data.
Another party-in-person narrated a harrowing incident where her daughter was attacked by 7–8 stray dogs, leaving her traumatised and fearful of stepping outside.
The Court responded:
“We are conscious that these things are happening. Children and adults are getting bitten, people are dying.”
She urged the Court to empower RWAs to take binding decisions on stray dogs within their premises.
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing in an intervention application, urged the Supreme Court to adopt a humane, scientific and non-adversarial approach to the stray dog issue. He argued that human conduct towards animals plays a decisive role in shaping outcomes and maintained that sterilisation is the only sustainable solution to controlling the stray dog population.
Referring to internationally accepted practices, Sibal advocated the CSVR model: Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate and Release, which he said has been successfully implemented across the world.
He cautioned the Court against indiscriminate sheltering of dogs, warning that housing rabid and non-rabid animals together could aggravate the spread of rabies rather than contain it. From an economic standpoint, he submitted that community-based care models significantly reduce the financial burden on the State, which cannot be expected to indefinitely fund large-scale shelter infrastructure.
He relied on:
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
- Role of AWBI under Sections 4 and 9
- Section 38, empowering the Centre to frame rules
- March 10, 2023, notification forming the ABC framework
“The solution must be reasonable, humane, and consistent with a civilised society — protecting both humans and animals.”
Sibal further drew the Court’s attention to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, stressing that the proceedings should not be treated as an adversarial exercise but as a collaborative effort to find a humane and practical solution.
The Supreme Court agreed, observing that
“solution must be “reasonable” and “consistent with the values of a civilised society that takes care of both human beings and animals.””
Referring to Rule 11 of the ABC Rules, Sibal noted that stray dogs may be captured only for specific purposes, including population control under ABC programmes and in cases of complaints involving dog bites or suspected rabies. He explained that monitoring committees are required to oversee the process, ensuring transparency and accountability in every step.
Sibal placed special emphasis on Rule 11(5), which mandates that the capture of dogs must be conducted humanely, using nets or hand-catching methods. He highlighted that the use of iron tongs, wires, or other cruel methods is strictly prohibited, reinforcing the statutory principle that animal welfare and public safety must go hand in hand.
Sibal highlighted Rule 19 of the ABC Rules, explaining that dogs must be released back to the same locality after recovery, with proper records and geo-tagging. He said aggressive or unruly dogs can be captured, sterilised, vaccinated, and then returned safely.
The Court quipped,
“Only thing missing is counselling the dog.”
Sibal smiled, acknowledging it as a light-hearted remark.
The Bench noted that stray dogs not only bite but also cause road accidents, particularly for two-wheeler riders. Sibal responded that not every dog is dangerous, and blanket removal is not the solution. When asked how authorities can identify which dogs might bite, he stressed that prevention and monitoring are key, focusing on problem dogs rather than punishing all animals.
On the issue of shelters, Sibal warned that housing all stray dogs is physically, economically, and scientifically impossible. He said population control would take time and must rely on gradual, sustained monitoring. Referring to Rule 16, he pointed out that the ABC Rules already provide for animal helplines, complaint registers, coordination with hospitals, and humane capture of suspected rabid dogs, but lamented that the system is largely unimplemented.
The Court asked bluntly,
“Do you expect this to work?”
Sibal replied that mass sheltering is no solution, stressing that it could be dangerous for humans and animals alike. He emphasised that neither judges nor lawyers have the “domain knowledge” to make veterinary decisions, and that all solutions must come through scientific committees, not instinctive reactions.
Sibal criticised the AWBI Standard Operating Procedure, saying States are following it blindly instead of the ABC Rules. He flagged key issues: the SOP allows sterilisation by entities without AWBI certification, prioritises male-first sterilisation contrary to WHO/WOAH guidelines, and ignores scientific protocols that recommend sterilising 70% females and 30% males.
On shelter conditions, Sibal warned that the SOP permits severe overcrowding, turning facilities into disease-prone environments. The ABC Rules mandate a minimum of 42 square feet per dog, while the SOP allows far less. He cited veterinary standards recommending 2–4 dogs per enclosure and warned that mixing rabid and healthy dogs could result in catastrophic outbreaks, stating,
“hell will break loose.”
The Bench acknowledged concerns raised about feeding and the welfare of stray dogs. Sibal responded that dogs are fed where they live, not in shelters, and that removing them disrupts the local ecosystem, leading to fights, hunger, and disease. The Court cautioned Sibal not to get excited.
He said,
“I’m not excited, I’m flustered.” The Bench reassured him, “No need to be flustered. Continue.”
Relying on international and Indian research, Sibal told the Court that killing or mass removal of dogs does not reduce populations or rabies incidence. Instead, it creates a territorial vacuum that is quickly filled by new, unvaccinated dogs. He cited material stating:
“Street dogs removed are replaced by dogs from neighbouring areas. Dog fights increase. Dog bites increase. Rabies continues.”
Sibal reminded the Court of its own earlier orders: the first order prohibits mass removal of dogs, while the second restricts removal only to institutional areas, without interfering with ongoing ABC programmes elsewhere. When the Court asked how dogs could then be removed from hospitals, courts, and schools, Sibal clarified that removing them without ABC measures only leads to their return.
“Dogs are territorial,”
he explained.
“If you remove one, another comes.”
He argued that
the CSVR model over time reduces populations naturally.
In Indian cities where CSVR has been implemented, population reduction has been observed within a decade, without causing ecological imbalance. The Court remarked,
“Human health comes first.”
Sibal agreed, pointing to the National Action Plan for Dog-Mediated Rabies Elimination (2030), which prioritises human safety while employing scientific and humane methods.
Sibal concluded by stressing that while children and the public must be protected, solutions that increase risk are unacceptable. He prayed that the Court constitute an expert committee, comprising States where ABC programmes have succeeded, domain experts, and other stakeholders, to propose feasible, scientific pathways for managing community dogs in institutional areas.
Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for NALSAR Hyderabad, highlighted that the university hosts the only Animal Law Centre in India, offering Master’s and PG Diploma programmes in Animal Protection.
Venugopal shared findings from an investigation, noting the scale of the challenge.
“Our investigation has disclosed certain statistics. Total educational institutions: 15,46,941. Assuming 10 dogs per institution, that’s 1.54 crore dogs. Total shelters required: 77,347,”
he told the Court.
He stressed the practical impossibility of implementing mass infrastructure measures.
“Schools will not be able to fund fencing and other requirements when they don’t even have access to hand washing and toilet facilities,”
Venugopal said, highlighting the gap between legal directives and ground realities.
Venugopal, like Sibal, sought the constitution of an expert committee comprising heads of relevant departments to guide implementation in a practical, scientifically informed manner.
The Court interjected with a touch of humour:
“This is the same prayer as Mr. Sibal. Who is copying from whom?”
Venugopal emphasised that the ABC Rules require stray dogs to be returned to their original locations.
“Your lordships’ order does not recognise this. The Supreme Court cannot ignore a statutory rule until it’s set aside,”
he said.
He concluded,
“Let the expert committee report come. Dogs cannot be taken away to shelters. They have to be returned to the place from where they were taken.”
Another counsel suggested the government collaborate with dog feeders, noting they can manage strays effectively if included. He highlighted that animal cruelty carries only a ₹50 fine, which needs review, and pointed out that cities like Jaipur have successfully tackled rabies. In Navi Mumbai, he said, there are no shelters, and dogs are often picked up and dumped.
A petitioner in person noted that a 90-year-old recently died due to dog bites, showing the Court a photograph. The Bench instructed,
“Put the photo aside, focus on the point.”
The petitioner added that Japan has no stray dogs, uses “dream box” shelters, and no rabies deaths since 1950.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves said India sees 37 lakh dog bites annually, with victims needing multiple vaccine doses. He noted that Delhi recorded zero rabies deaths from 2022 to 2024, crediting the return of vaccinated strays. Gonsalves argued that mass removal is hazardous, and maintaining 70% vaccinated dogs protects the community. He stressed animal lovers bear most of the responsibility and should be empowered to feed and manage dogs locally.
He added that women feeders often face harassment, cruelty is common, and NGOs risk de-recognition under Board directions.
“Dogs aren’t cows that can live in goshalas,”
he said, pointing out their role even in courts for security.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover highlighted that several universities, including DU, IIT Bombay, NALSAR, Jindal, and Ashoka, have implemented humane, supervised dog management systems, showing that sterilised and vaccinated dogs left in their original areas rarely cause aggression.
Senior Advocate CU Singh highlighted that DU’s Faculty of Law has had an Animal Law Cell since 2022, with three professors actively researching issues related to urban animal management.
Singh emphasized that the abrupt removal of stray dogs creates a vacuum effect, which often results in other dogs moving into the area. This phenomenon, supported by scientific studies, underscores the need for research-based strategies rather than ad hoc removal.
“The issue isn’t whether dogs should be present at DU or Supreme Court campuses—they exist in reality. The real question is how to manage them safely without posing risks to humans,”
Singh added.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan requested that a specific time be allotted for arguments.
However, Justice Vikram Nath stated,
“I am the master of my court, so I will not follow that.”
Justice Mehta further remarked that the approach followed was based on common consensus among the bench.
The matter has been adjourned until tomorrow at 10:30 am for continuation of arguments.
Previous Developments
During the last hearing in the stray dogs matter, the Supreme Court responded to claims of “inhuman” treatment by stating that video evidence would be examined at the next hearing to assess the issue of humanity. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal informed the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that the proposed three-judge bench was called off and objected to the new MCD rules, calling them contrary to statutory provisions.
Sibal urged an urgent hearing, citing the lack of dog shelters and the possible implementation of the rules in December. The bench declined to advance the matter and scheduled it for January 7, reiterating that the issue would be considered on that date.
Earlier, on November 7, the Supreme Court took note of the alarming rise in dog bite incidents in institutional areas like schools, hospitals, and railway stations.
The court ordered the immediate relocation of stray dogs to designated shelters after they have been sterilized and vaccinated. The special bench also decreed that any stray dogs captured shall not be returned to their original locations.
Additionally, the court mandated the removal of all stray cattle and other animals from state and national highways, as well as expressways. The increase in dog bite incidents in institutional settings highlighted not only administrative negligence but also a systemic failure to safeguard these areas from preventable dangers.
The apex court is addressing this issue in a suo motu case initiated on July 28, following a media report about stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children in the national capital.
Previously, on August 22, 2025, a three-judge special bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, along with Justices Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, modified its earlier August 11 order that had prohibited the release of stray dogs from shelters.
The suo motu case was initiated on July 28, following media reports of rising stray dog attacks and rabies cases, particularly among children in Delhi.
An earlier order of August 11, passed by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had created huge controversy. That order had directed that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR must be caught and sent to shelters within eight weeks.
Case Title:
In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
SMW(C) No. 5/2025
READ LIVE COVERAGE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs
