Dogs Don't Have Absolute Right To Occupy Institutional Premises; ABC Rules Don't Mandate Their Release At Such Premises : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that stray dogs found within institutional and restricted-access premises such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, airports, bus stands and railway stations cannot be treated as “street dogs” or “community dogs” under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, and therefore cannot claim re-release to the same location after capture and sterilisation.

The Court said stray dogs do not possess an “indefeasible or absolute right” to occupy all categories of spaces irrespective of their nature and use, and clarified that the statutory framework for humane management of stray dogs cannot be interpreted as conferring a perpetual right of occupation in sensitive institutional spaces.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria delivered the judgment in a batch of matters arising from the Court's suo motu proceedings on stray dog attacks.

The Court was considering challenges by animal welfare organisations and individuals to its November 7, 2025 directions requiring municipal authorities to remove stray dogs from institutional areas and prohibiting their re-release to the same locations. The challengers argued that Rule 11(19) of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 mandates that sterilised and vaccinated dogs be released back to the same locality from where they were captured, and that the Court's earlier directions ran contrary to the statutory scheme.

Rejecting this contention, the Court framed the central issue as whether stray dogs found within public institutions could be regarded as “street dogs” or “community dogs” so as to be entitled to re-release under the Rules.

Interpreting the statutory framework, the Court noted that Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules classifies “street dogs” or “community owned dogs” as homeless dogs found living on streets or within gated campuses. However, it held that this classification provision is merely descriptive and does not create enforceable rights.

“A classification provision, by its very nature, cannot be construed and interpreted to be a source of enforceable rights, much less one that overrides considerations of public safety, institutional integrity, or statutory limitations,” the Court observed.

The bench further held that the rule-making authority could not have intended the expression “gated campus” to legitimise the presence of stray dogs in sensitive institutional premises.

“While including 'gated campus' within the ambit of Rule 7(2)... the rule-making authority could not have contemplated a situation where stray dogs are permitted to inhabit and roam around in sensitive institutional premises such as hospitals, schools, colleges, sports complexes, airports and similar establishments,” the judgment said.

The Court emphasised that such spaces are frequented by vulnerable groups including children, patients and elderly persons, and are required to maintain secure and hygienic conditions for their intended public functions.

It also relied on the definition of “street” under Section 2(i) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which limits the expression to public spaces such as roads, lanes and passages accessible to the public. Based on this, the Court held that the expression “same place or locality” in Rule 11(19) cannot be expansively interpreted to include institutional campuses or controlled-access premises.

“The term 'same place or locality' must therefore be confined to public streets and other analogous open-access areas,” the Court held.

The bench warned that any contrary interpretation would leave authorities powerless to prevent the presence of animals in high-risk areas, even where public safety is directly threatened.

Accordingly, the Court held that stray dogs found in educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, airports, bus stands and railway stations do not fall within the scope of “street dogs” or “community dogs” for the purpose of re-release under the statutory framework.

The relevant quotes from the judgment are as follows :

"Upon a careful examination of the relevant provisions, we are of the considered view that a proper and harmonious construction of the provisions of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, when read in conjunction with the parent enactment, namely the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, does not support the proposition that stray dogs possess an indefeasible or absolute right to occupy or remain within all categories of spaces or premises, irrespective of their nature or use."

"The scheme of the ABC Rules, 2023, properly understood, is regulatory in character, intended to facilitate humane management of stray dog populations, including their control, sterilisation, vaccination and regulated presence in appropriate public areas, and cannot be elevated to confer a perpetual or unqualified right of existence upon such animals in every location where they may be found, particularly in spaces where considerations of public safety, health and institutional functioning assume significance."

"Spaces such as educational institutions, hospitals, transport hubs and other public utility areas are designed for specific purposes involving the safety, health and movement of large numbers of people, often including vulnerable groups. These premises are expected to maintain a controlled, secure and hygienic environment, where human safety measures are to be maintained at the optimum level and all risk factors have to be eliminated. To read the Rules as mandating the continued presence or reintroduction of stray dogs in such spaces would be contrary to the very purpose for which these premises exist, and would create a direct, unavoidable, and irreconcilable conflict between statutory interpretation and the constitutional imperative of ensuring public safety in such environments, thereby resulting in serious practical and administrative difficulties in the discharge of their core functions."

 Rejecting the applicants' arguments, the Court concluded :

"Consequently, stray dogs found within such institutional spaces or similar controlled environments, including educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, airports, bus stands/depots (including Inter-State Bus Terminals) and railway stations cannot be held to fall within the scope of the classification contemplated under Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules, 2023, i.e., “street dogs” or “community owned dogs,” inasmuch as the said provision, read in conjunction with Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023, cannot be construed to extend to sensitive or restricted premises of this nature."

The Court further cautioned that treating the presence of stray dogs in all locations as a matter of right would produce anomalous consequences by stripping authorities of

The judgment reaffirmed the Court's earlier directions requiring jurisdictional municipal authorities to remove stray dogs from institutional premises, shift them to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination, and ensure they are not released back into the same institutional locations.

The Court said these directions are consistent with a purposive interpretation of the law and aligned with the constitutional obligation to safeguard public safety under Article 21.

Also from the judgment - 'Dog Bite Menace Rising' : Supreme Court Refuses To Modify Directions To Remove Stray Dogs From Public Places

Supreme Court Allows Euthanasia Of Rabid & Dangerous Dogs