Today, On 29th January, The Supreme Court reserved its verdict in the stray dogs case, while the AWBI reported only 76 recognised sterilisation centres. The Court also urged the NHAI to develop an app for public reporting of stray animal sightings.
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment in a suo motu case initiated last year regarding the management of the stray dog population across India.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria reserved its verdict after concluding the final round of submissions from various States, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).
During the proceedings, the Court encouraged the NHAI to develop an app that would allow the public to report sightings of stray animals along highways.
The Court remarked,
“Why don’t you make an app so that anyone who spots an animal can click a picture and upload? You will have visuals,”
The NHAI’s counsel responded affirmatively, saying, “We will do that.”
The AWBI’s representative informed the Court that there are only 76 recognized sterilisation centers in the country, despite reports from States indicating the existence of 883 stray dog sterilisation centers.
The counsel explained,
“There are certain pending applications. There are more than 250 applications… There are 883 running, as per data given by States, but they have not yet been given recognition by us,”
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
The Court inquired about the operations of these non-recognized centers, leading to concerns that the funds designated for sterilisation might be misappropriated.
The counsel added,
“There is surprising data. Where the dog population is less like in Uttarakhand, the sterilisation is more (the sterilisation numbers reported are more than the dog population numbers),”
The Court pointed out the implications of such discrepancies, asserting,
“The only request to the AWBI is whatever applications are pending, you should process them, and either you reject them or grant them within a specified time.”
As the session progressed, the Court sought to understand the measures in place across various States to monitor and manage stray dogs. The issue of budget allocations from State governments for these efforts was also raised.
For instance, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Rajasthan government, disclosed that the State has 22 dog pounds, which the Court considered insufficient: “In a city like Jodhpur or Jaipur, you would need more than 20 shelters in one city. How will you tackle it?”
Responding to the concerns, Bhati mentioned that budgetary allocations were sought.
However, the Court expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of such measures, stating,
“If you don’t tackle this problem it will keep on magnifying. Every year the population will go up by 10-15%. You are increasing your own problems by avoiding this.”
In earlier statements, the Punjab government’s counsel noted that approximately 108 dogs were collected from educational and health institutions in Malerkotla, along with a budget of 11 crores and 20 dog-catching vehicles. Conversely, in Tamil Nadu, Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agrawal reported that only 35,000 dogs have been sterilised annually, amid a budget of 22 crores allocated for 72 shelters.
The Court further highlighted that Uttar Pradesh appeared to be performing better than other States, with its counsel claiming the presence of 3,406 dog pounds and over 800,000 sterilizations. “Better in comparison to other States. Till you start reaching the status of negative population growth, you have to keep doing it,” the Court remarked.
The NHAI’s representative mentioned proactive measures to remove stray animals from national highways, including the identification of 1,317 vulnerable locations across 1,434 kilometers.
The Court emphasized that tackling this issue also involved addressing stray cattle, recommending that entities involved in highway construction include facilities for these animals as part of their corporate social responsibility projects.
As discussions unfolded, the Court reaffirmed that the NHAI would primarily be responsible for managing stray animals on national highways.
It stated,
“The task of patrolling should be that of the NHAI. Don’t pass that on to the State,”
In related updates, ASG Archana Pathak Dave informed the Court about ongoing efforts, such as the national rabies control program, which is supported by healthcare personnel training and funding for rabies treatments.
A final point raised during the hearing was about a religious perspective on the culling of dogs, which the Court did not elaborate on, suggesting a formal submission of the argument.
The Court then reserved its order, allowing counsel to submit written briefs within a week.
Earlier, During yesterday’s hearing, the Court voiced its dissatisfaction regarding what it viewed as insufficient actions by various States to sterilize stray dogs, establish dog pounds, and remove dogs from the premises of educational and other institutions.
The Court cautioned that it would impose stringent measures against any State that submitted vague arguments in their affidavits.
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.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs