Today, On 8th January, In the Stray Dogs case, the Supreme Court clarified that it has not ordered the removal of all dogs from streets. The Court emphasized that stray dogs should be managed responsibly according to existing rules and regulations.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court continued its suo motu hearing on the issue of stray dogs on Thursday.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria listened to extensive arguments from senior advocates, animal welfare organizations, victims’ representatives, and intervenors, discussing compliance with previous directives, the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, and public safety issues.
The Supreme Court clarified that it has not ordered the removal of all dogs from the streets, emphasizing that they should be managed in accordance with the established rules.
The bench remarked,
“The dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs. It will always attack when it senses that. We are talking from personal experience,”
When a dog enthusiast in the courtroom shook her head in disagreement, the Court responded,
“Madam, don’t nod your head. If they know you are scared, there is a higher chance they will attack you. Even your pet will do it.”
Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal informed the Court that the four remaining states had filed compliance affidavits overnight, bringing the total to sixteen compliant states, while seven states still needed to submit theirs.
Agarwal requested an additional day to compile a consolidated tabular report.
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
Senior Advocate CU Singh pointed out that four major states had raised formal objections to the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). He expressed concerns regarding the abrupt removal of dogs, arguing that it might disturb the ecological equilibrium by increasing rodent populations, which can carry diseases.
Senior Advocate CU Singh argued today that sudden removal of dogs results in a significant increase in rodent populations, leading to unintended consequences.
He further noted that placing dogs in overcrowded shelters can facilitate the spread of various diseases.
Singh remarked,
“There has to be a balance. Your lordships know what happened in Surat 20-30 years ago,”
In response, the Court made a humorous observation.
It said,
“On a lighter note, dogs and cats are enemies. Cats kill rodents so we should promote more cats and less dogs. That would be the solution. Tell us how many dogs you want roaming around in hospital corridors?”
In a lighter moment, Justice Mehta suggested that promoting cats could help with rodent issues but clarified that the Court had not directed the removal of all dogs; animal management must adhere strictly to the Rules.
Singh asserted that sterilization and re-release in the original area is the only proven method, cautioning that mass sheltering in overcrowded facilities could lead to the spread of diseases. He warned that ongoing non-compliance shouldn’t lead to the dismissal of the ABC Rules altogether.
Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal, representing a prominent animal rights expert, highlighted the magnitude of the issue, estimating that the proposed solutions would cost nearly Rs.26,800 crore and require over 91,000 shelters.
He noted the absence of a dedicated budget for implementing the Rules and suggested the creation of a single nodal agency, district-level infrastructure, trained personnel, and use of CSR funds.
He also criticized the AWBI SOP for lowering safety standards by allowing untrained individuals to capture dogs and reducing fence heights.
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta emphasized that the lack of a nationwide census was a critical issue, as the last one took place in 2009. He warned against capturing dogs without being aware of shelter capacities, highlighting the risk of mingling healthy animals with infected ones.
He urged the Court to pause its earlier directives until sufficient data and infrastructure were established. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pointed out that census and identification must precede any removal actions, labeling the current situation as one of “complete non-compliance” by the states. He also raised objections to a previous direction requiring animal advocates and NGOs to deposit funds before being heard, arguing it created barriers to justice access.
In response, Justice Nath humorously noted that without such measures, the Court would need a large space to accommodate everyone.
Several other Senior Advocates, including Vinay Navare and Nakul Diwan, reiterated that the ABC Rules remain unchallenged and that re-release is standard practice. They encouraged the replication of successful initiatives like those in Lucknow and IIT Delhi on a national scale, with increased involvement from local bodies and the integration of technologies such as micro-chipping.
Counsel for victims and citizens highlighted the prevalence of dog bite incidents, asserting that aggressive dogs should not be automatically allowed to return to the streets, and that residential areas should receive protections similar to institutional settings.
They argued that public access to private homes and streets, as protected under Article 21, cannot be restricted by feeding zones.
On the animal welfare side, Senior Advocates Shyam Diwan and Siddharth Luthra advocated for the establishment of an expert committee and cautioned against directives that surpassed statutory requirements.
They warned that prolonged detention of dogs could be considered cruel and emphasized the necessity of allowing existing statutory organizations to carry out their functions. Intervenors from institutions like Delhi University and IIT Delhi presented data demonstrating that effective sterilization, vaccination, and monitoring programs have nearly eradicated aggression and rabies without necessitating dog relocation.
They asserted that institutional initiatives backed by the administration could offer immediate solutions while broader infrastructure is developed.
In conclusion, the Bench recognized the gravity of the problem, aiming to balance human safety with animal welfare.
They directed that discussions would continue tomorrow (January 9) and instructed counsel to prepare by reviewing a article dated December 29 regarding feral dogs hunting rare species in Ladakh, indicating that ecological implications would also be addressed.
Earlier, during yesterday’s proceedings, the Court highlighted the rising incidence of dog bite cases across the country and criticized the municipal authorities and local bodies for not adequately enforcing the Animal Birth Control (ABC) regulations.
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
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
