The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 19, 2026) refused to modify its November 7, 2025 order directing all States and Union Territories to ensure the removal of stray dogs from high-footfall public institutions, including educational institutions, hospitals, bus depots, and railway stations, while clarifying that such dogs cannot be “re-released” into these institutional areas even after vaccination and sterilisation.
Stray dogs at the centre of a growing social divide
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria observed that a “harmonious” reading of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, together with their parent statute, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, did not support the contention that stray dogs possess an “indefeasible or absolute right” to occupy or remain in all categories of public spaces irrespective of their nature or use.
“The right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack or exposure to life-threatening events such as dog bites in public areas. The State cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate in the face of statutory mechanisms specifically designed to address them,” the Bench observed.
ABC centres in each district
The court noted that despite nearly two decades having elapsed since the introduction of the ABC framework, there had been a “discernible absence of sustained, systematic and incremental efforts” on the part of States and Union Territories to expand and strengthen the infrastructure required to manage the steadily increasing stray dog population.
Accordingly, the Bench directed States and Union Territories to establish at least one fully functional Animal Birth Control Centre in every district, equipped with adequate veterinary infrastructure, trained personnel and surgical facilities to facilitate large-scale sterilisation and vaccination programmes. It further said the number of centres should be expanded, wherever necessary, keeping in view the population density and territorial extent of each district.
The court also directed States and Union Territories to ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin in all government medical facilities and to establish effective public health response mechanisms to address dog-bite incidents.
Euthanasia for ‘rabid and aggressive’ dogs
While underscoring that when the safety and lives of human beings are weighed against the interests and welfare of sentient beings, the “constitutional balance” must necessarily tilt in favour of the preservation of human life, the Bench also permitted municipal authorities to adopt legally permissible measures, including euthanasia in cases involving “rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous or aggressive dogs”.
“In areas where the population of stray dogs has assumed alarming proportions and where incidents of dog bites or aggressive attacks have become frequent and pose a continuing threat to public safety, the concerned authorities may, subject to due assessment by qualified veterinary experts…take such measures as may be legally permissible, including euthanasia in cases involving rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous/aggressive dogs”, the Bench said.
Observing that animal welfare organisations “who claim to care” for stray dogs must also accept tortious liability, the Bench directed that any animal welfare group or student-led body operating within educational institutions and engaging in the feeding or maintenance of stray dogs must file an affidavit before the head of the institution expressly undertaking such liability.
Failing this, no such activity would be permitted within the institutional premises. The court further warned that non-compliance would invite suitable action against the head of the institution concerned.
Dogs and laws: On street dogs and the Supreme Court order
‘Alarming’ rise in dog-bite incidents
The judges also referred to several newspaper reports highlighting the “alarming” rise in stray dog incidents. The court noted that Udaipur had recorded approximately 1,750 dog-bite cases in 2026, while Bhilwara witnessed 42 persons being bitten in a single day. It further pointed out that Tamil Nadu reported approximately 2.63 lakh dog-bite cases and 17 related deaths in the first four months of 2026.
The Bench also observed that the issue had spread beyond residential localities into airports and other public spaces, noting that authorities at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi had acknowledged at least 31 dog-bite incidents across airport terminals since January 1, 2026.
Municipal authorities tasked with implementing the directions were also granted “protection” by the Bench for acts carried out in “good faith” and in bona fide discharge of their official duties. Accordingly, the court empowered High Courts to quash “frivolous, vexatious or malicious proceedings” initiated against such officials.
Non-compliance to be viewed ‘seriously’
The top court, however, acknowledged that “day-to-day compliance” with its directions would be “administratively burdensome” for it to monitor. It accordingly directed all High Courts across the country to initiate suo motu proceedings to oversee compliance with its August and November 2025 directions.
The Bench also made it clear that any “continued non-compliance or apathy” on the part of authorities in implementing its directions should be “viewed seriously” by the High Courts, which were directed to initiate contempt and disciplinary proceedings against erring officials.
Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories have been directed to submit status reports before the respective High Courts by August 7, 2026, while the High Courts were asked to place consolidated reports before the apex court every four months elucidating the “progress achieved”.
The Bench accordingly posted the matter for further hearing on November 17, when the first such consolidated report is expected to be placed on record.
The suo motu proceedings were initiated last year in July amid mounting public concern over a spate of dog-bite incidents, including the death of a six-year-old girl. This had earlier prompted a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan to direct the mass capture, without release, of stray dogs across Delhi and neighbouring districts.
The directive, however, drew sharp criticism from animal welfare groups, which warned that such measures would amount to cruelty and violate statutory mandates. Subsequently, in a rare administrative move, the then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai withdrew the matter from Justice Pardiwala’s Bench and reassigned it to a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Nath.
Subsequently, in November, a Bench headed by Justice Nath had ordered States and Union territories to identify all government and private educational and healthcare institutions, transport hubs and sports complexes, and ensure that their premises were secured against stray dog intrusion.
Published – May 19, 2026 11:29 am IST