The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain an NGO plea seeking clarification on stray dog euthanasia directions, observing that statements made by a Chief Minister cannot justify modifying judicial orders or imply permission for indiscriminate killing of stray dogs across states.
The Supreme Court declined to entertain an application filed by the NGO “Animals Are People Too”. The NGO sought clarification that the Court’s recent directions allowing euthanasia of certain stray dogs should not be read as permission for indiscriminate killing.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the petitioner to instead approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court, noting that the Supreme Court had already allowed High Courts to continue monitoring implementation of the directions relating to stray dogs.
The issue was mentioned by Advocate Anil Kumar Mishra, who argued that the Supreme Court’s May 19 order was allegedly being misconstrued and misused to justify large-scale killing of stray dogs in Punjab. “Dogs are being killed everywhere, all thanks to the Supreme Court,” Mishra submitted to the Bench, while referring to statements attributed to Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann regarding the elimination of stray dogs.
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Case| Not All Dogs Must Be Removed from Streets: Supreme Court Clarifies
Mishra contended that the NGO was only asking for clarification that the euthanasia directions apply strictly to rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous dogs not to healthy stray dogs. However, the Bench refused to hear the plea.
Justice Nath asked,
“Just because a Chief Minister makes a statement, does that mean we change our order?”
When Mishra pointed out that the Punjab Chief Minister had allegedly tweeted that the Supreme Court had given a “free hand to kill all dogs,” the Court was not persuaded. Justice Mehta then remarked, “No, we will not entertain this.”
After the refusal, Mishra requested permission to withdraw the application and move the High Court instead. “Allow me to withdraw and grant liberty,” he said. The Court responded, “No, you go. We will not say anything.”
In its petition, the NGO expressed concern that local authorities could misuse the Supreme Court’s directions to carry out unlawful culling, poisoning, or removal of stray dogs in violation of statutory safeguards under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, and related legal protections.
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
The application specifically sought an express clarification that euthanasia may be undertaken only after verification by qualified veterinary experts and strictly within the framework of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the ABC Rules, 2023. It also argued that the term “aggressive dog” is not defined under the ABC Rules, which could allow local authorities to classify ordinary stray dogs as “dangerous” in an arbitrary manner.
The NGO further sought directions requiring that no dog be declared “aggressive” unless it is examined and recommended by a properly constituted committee comprising a government veterinary doctor, an animal welfare representative, and a local authority official. It also requested that State police authorities ensure stray dogs are not unlawfully harmed under the pretext of implementing the Court’s earlier directions.
Notably, in its May 19 order in the suo motu stray dog matter, a three-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria permitted authorities to take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia, for cases involving rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous dogs subject to statutory safeguards and expert assessment. The Court noted the existence of “deeply disturbing” reports of dog bite incidents, particularly involving children and elderly persons, and emphasised the need to balance public safety with animal welfare protections.
The Court had also refused to modify its earlier directions requiring removal of stray dogs from premises such as educational institutions, bus stands, railway stations, sports complexes, hospitals, and similar places.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had ordered on August 11, 2025 the removal of stray dogs from the Delhi NCR region and their relocation to dedicated shelters/compounds. It was also reported that a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed that the strays should not be released back into localities even after sterilisation.
In July of the previous year, the apex court had taken suo motu cognisance of a disturbing and alarming newspaper report published by the Times of India in its Delhi edition titled “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”.
The Bench had observed:
“Everyday, hundreds of dog bites are being reported in the city and the areas on the outskirts, leading to rabies and ultimately young infants, children and aged are falling prey to this dreadful disease. We are shocked to know that on an average 20,000 cases of dog bites are recorded in the country and out of which 2000 incidents happen in Delhi every day”.
As per the report and related material considered by the Court, a six-year-old girl named Chavi Sharma suffered multiple dog bites, leaving deep injuries on her left leg, arm, and palm. It was stated that despite residents repeatedly complaining to authorities, no action was taken.
The material also referenced the attack on four-year-old Abhishek Rai, who was reportedly attacked by a pack of stray dogs on 23-7-2025 in Delhi’s Alipur area of Narela, when he was returning from his Anganwadi school. The incident was described as involving dogs that repeatedly pounced on his face until bystanders rushed to help.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE