Today, On 3rd November, In the stray dogs case, the Supreme Court recorded that all States have submitted their compliance reports, except Madhya Pradesh. The Bench directed that the matter be listed for orders on November 7 after reviewing the submissions.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday continued hearing the suo motu case related to the alarming rise in deaths and injuries caused by stray dog attacks across India.
The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria expressed concern over non-compliance by several States with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, directing the personal presence of Chief Secretaries from all States and Union Territories except West Bengal and Telangana, which had already filed compliance affidavits.
Also Read: Stay Curious and Never Stop Learning: CJI-Designate Justice Surya Kant to Young Lawyers
At the outset, Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi urged the Court to restrict entry only to those involved in this particular case, noting,
“Your Lordships may consider restricting entry only to this case, it’s quite difficult to get in.”
Justice Vikram Nath responded,
“I had earlier suggested using an auditorium. Who is representing Andhra Pradesh? What’s your explanation for not filing the affidavit on the last date?”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then informed the Bench,
“Instead of looking all the states individually, Your Lordships may find the summary in the office report itself.”
However, Singhvi pointed out that,
“Many of the vital facts are not stated. For example: budget allotted, number of dogs sterilised, number of ABC centres, etc. Your Lordships can ask for a chart on these factors from all the States.”
Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy added that her team would compile all affidavits and prepare a detailed chart for the Court.
When the Solicitor General suggested that Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, the Court-appointed Amicus Curiae, should handle the coordination, an intervenor, Vandana Jain, sought permission to address the Bench, saying she had devoted years to this issue and wanted to make two suggestions.
Justice Nath asked,
“What is your name?”
Intervenor replied,
“Vandana Jain.”
Justice Nath clarified,
“Ms Jain, we have not fixed the matter today for compliances by the States. We will take up suggestions on the next date and give guidelines.”
Another counsel pointed out that there were three sides to the issue, “The dog lovers, the affected, and the State” and urged the Court to divide submissions accordingly.
Justice Nath said firmly,
“We are not taking any submissions.”
When the counsel added, “For the future, Your Lordships,” the Bench acknowledged but did not engage further.
As the proceedings continued, Justice Nath asked,
“Are all the Chief Secretaries present?”
The Solicitor General replied,
“All States are represented today. The Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh called me; he has arrived but is delayed due to traffic congestion and is on his way.”
At that point, when Karuna Nundy tried to make a further submission about incorrect compliance methods, SG Mehta interrupted.
In a light-hearted moment that drew laughter in the courtroom, Justice Nath remarked,
“I can’t stop her from speaking. If you can then please. I will not even make an attempt.”
The Court then recorded its order stating that all States are represented and have submitted their compliance reports. Except for Madhya Pradesh, all Chief Secretaries were present as informed. The Bench directed that the compliance checklist be handed over to Mr. Aggarwal.
The Court further ordered that the matter be listed for orders on November 7, adding that the personal appearance of Chief Secretaries will no longer be required at this stage.
However, it cautioned that in case of future non-compliance, their presence may again be mandated.
In a related direction, the Supreme Court allowed applications for impleadment and intervention where deposits of Rs.25,000 or Rs.2,00,000 had been made. The Registry was also directed to accept deposits from applicants who could not do so earlier.
The Bench will next issue orders regarding the preparation of a comprehensive compliance chart and guidelines to address the nationwide menace of stray dog attacks.
Earlier, The Supreme Court reprimanded states for ignoring its directives in the stray dogs case, ordering all Chief Secretaries to appear in physically. Justice Vikram Nath said authorities had been “sleeping over” the Court’s orders despite ample time given.
Background
Previously, On August 22, the apex court expanded the scope of the stray dogs matter beyond the Delhi-NCR region, directing that all States and Union Territories be made parties to the case.
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 directions state that:
- Stray dogs picked up by municipal authorities must be sterilised, vaccinated, dewormed, and released back into the same area they were taken.
- Dogs infected with rabies, suspected of being infected, or showing aggressive behaviour should not be released back into the streets. Instead, they should be sterilised, immunised, and kept in separate pounds or shelters.
- Municipal bodies must create dedicated feeding spaces for stray dogs in every ward to ensure structured management.
The Court also observed that the Animal Birth Control Rules must be applied uniformly across India.
The bench emphasized that the revised directions aim to reduce public health risks while also upholding animal rights.
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.