'Why Stray Dogs Needed In Institutions? Can Anyone Identify Which Dog Is In A Mood To Bite?' Supreme Court Asks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the stray dog matter extensively, primarily examining the issue of stray dogs in institutional premises, with the Bench questioning whether spaces such as courts, schools and hospitals should have canine presence at all.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, heard the matter for the entire first half of the day. The hearing saw submissions from victims of dog attacks, animal welfare organisations, senior law officers and representatives of educational institutions.

On November 7, the Court had directed the removal of stray dogs from institutional premises including schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations. The Court had ordered that such dogs be relocated to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination and specifically directed that dogs picked up from institutional areas should not be released back at the same location.

The directions triggered several applications seeking modification, clarification or suspension, particularly on the ground that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules mandate release of sterilised and vaccinated dogs back to the same area from where they are captured.

At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Nath stated that the Court would hear all sides. “We will hear everyone today. We will hear the victims, then the haters and the lovers both,” he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for authorities, quipped, “There are those who appear for dogs, and those who appear for humans”.

Institutional premises and safety concerns

During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly emphasized that institutional premises stand on a different footing from public streets.

Justice Mehta observed, “As far as institutions are concerned, they are not streets. Why do you need dogs in court premises, schools? What are we discussing?” He further pointed out that institutions are spaces meant for unhindered access by children, patients, persons with disabilities and the general public.

Justice Nath highlighted the element of unpredictability involved. “It's not just biting,” he said. “It's also the threat caused by dogs. Of accidents. How can you identify? Which dog is in what mood in the morning, you don't know.”

Status of compliance by States

Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, the amicus curiae in the matter, informed the Bench that pursuant to the November order, the Animal Welfare Board had framed and circulated a standard operating procedure (SOP). He stated that directions had also been issued for removal of stray animals from national highways to prevent accidents and that the National Highways Authority of India had identified vulnerable stretches.

The amicus placed on record the status of affidavits filed by States and Union Territories. He submitted that several major States, including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Karnataka, had not filed affidavits until late the previous night. He added that some affidavits that were filed were inadequate in detailing infrastructure capacity, shelter availability and concrete measures taken.

Referring to Maharashtra's affidavit, the amicus stated that while certain numbers were provided, it was not possible to assess whether sufficient infrastructure existed. He cited data indicating that out of a large stray dog population, only a limited number had been shifted to permanent shelters. He described some of the affidavits as “disappointing”.

Justice Nath asked which States had failed to comply and indicated that the Court would take a strict view of non-compliance. “We will be harsh on states which have not responded,” he said.

Submissions from victims of dog bites

Several applicants addressed the Court on the issue of safety. One applicant submitted that thousands of people were bitten by dogs annually and that implementation of the ABC Rules had been ineffective. “I am a dog lover, but I am also a human lover,” the applicant said, adding that despite earlier court orders, State authorities had failed to act.

Another applicant referred to an incident in a group housing society where his daughter was attacked by multiple dogs and submitted that children were unable to move freely in such spaces. The applicant sought removal of dogs from residential and institutional premises.

A counsel appearing through video conference attempted to show a photograph depicting a dog attack victim. The Bench intervened, with Justice Nath stating, “Put down the photo, make your submissions.”

The Bench asked the victims' counsel to confine themselves to suggestions and practical measures.

Animal welfare groups

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for animal welfare groups, submitted that the matter was not adversarial. He argued that isolated incidents could not be a basis for removing all dogs from an area. “If one tiger attacks a man, it does not mean all tigers have to be caged,” he said.

Sibal contended that population control through sterilisation and vaccination was the only sustainable solution. He argued that mass relocation to shelters was not physically or economically feasible and could create health risks if rabies-infected dogs were housed with healthy ones. CSVR (Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate and Release) has been the globally accepted protocol to manage stray dog population, he stressed.

When Sibal suggested that unruly dogs could be picked up, sterilised and released, Justice Mehta remarked, “Only thing left is then to also provide counselling to the dog to not bite someone!” 

Justice Nath responded that the concern was not limited to biting incidents but extended to the general threat perception and accident risk. “Prevention is always better than cure,” he observed.

Sibal submitted that the SOP framed pursuant to the Court's November order was contrary to the ABC Rules. He argued that the SOP prioritized sterilisation in a manner that was unscientific and legitimised overcrowding in shelters. He also raised concerns about feeding and disease control in shelters.

Justice Mehta countered the submission by stating that non-governmental organisations also provide food in shelters. When the senior counsel questioned if over 1.5 crore dogs can be expected to be fed by dog lovers and NGOs, the judge said, "if they are so concerned, they should [feed]".

Justice Nath asked Sibal to place the SOP on record and stated that the Court would examine whether it was consistent with statutory rules.

Feasibility and infrastructure issues

Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, highlighted the scale of the problem. He submitted that India's stray dog population ran into several crores and that, at a capacity of 200 dogs per shelter, tens of thousands of shelters would be required.

Venugopal placed figures on the cost of feeding and maintaining dogs in shelters and argued that the State lacked the infrastructure and financial capacity. He also pointed to deficiencies in basic facilities such as electricity, toilets and drinking water in many schools, questioning how such institutions could be expected to create animal-proof infrastructure.

He submitted that until the ABC Rules were amended or struck down, directions contrary to them would raise issues of legality. "I can't expect SC will ignore a statutory rule, until that rule is amended, set aside. The order passed to not release dogs in same place is against the rule of law. Let expert committee give report," Venugopal submitted.

Justice Nath clarified that the Court was not framing new policy but monitoring compliance with existing laws and directions. He stated that the focus of the present hearing was on dogs in institutional areas and not on a broader reconsideration of animal welfare policy.

Justice Mehta referred to earlier orders of the Court and asked counsels to focus on their effective implementation. The Bench declined a request to play videos of dog attack incidents, observing that both sides had sufficient material to make their submissions.

When Senior Advocate Anand Grover (for an Association of dog lovers) submitted that the issue has worsened due to authorities' failure to strictly implement the ABC Rules, Justice Sandeep Mehta commented, "Should people continue to suffer because authorities have failed to do their job?"

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, in particular, highlighted the issue of dog feeders, especially women, being "harassed, stripped and beaten". He further submitted that the issue of animal cruelty also needs to be looked at by the Court, as dogs being beaten, poisoned and raped by human beings is a common practice in India.

From the victims' side, it was argued that many children have been attacked by dogs and that gated communities/housing societies, like an individual property, should have the discretion to decide whether dogs are to be permitted to roam freely in their premises. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that there should be a voting process in the Residence Welfare Associations to decide the same.

Senior Advocates CU Singh and Gopal Sankaranarayanan also made brief submissions from the side of animal welfare groups. The hearing will continue tomorrow.

Earlier developments

After a 2-judge bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala took suo motu cognizance of the stray dogs issue, authorities in Delhi-NCR were ordered to immediately start picking up stray dogs from all localities and shift them to dog shelters. After much furor and in a dramatic turn of events, the case was later shifted to a 3-judge bench headed by Justice Nath, which stayed the 2-judge bench order, deeming the order's prohibition on release of treated and vaccinated dogs to be "too harsh".

On the basis of Rule 11(9) of the ABC Rules, the Court clarified that stray dogs, which are picked up, must be released back to the same area from where they were picked up, after sterilization, deworming and immunization, except those dogs which are infected with rabies, suspected to be infected with rabies or are exhibiting aggressive behavior. It also ordered a prohibition on public feeding of stray dogs and directed the creation of dedicated feeding spaces. Further, it reiterated the direction in the August 11 order that no individual or organization should obstruct the municipal authorities from picking up the dogs in terms of the ABC rules.

On November 7, the Court directed removal of stray dogs from institutional premises such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations, and their relocation to designated shelters after due sterilization and vaccination. It will be the responsibility of the concerned local self-government institutions to pick up stray dogs from such institutions/areas, and shift them to designated dog shelters after vaccination and sterilization in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, it indicated.

The Court also directed that dogs picked up from such places should not be released back at the same location. "Permitting the same would frustrate the very purpose of liberating such institutions from the presence of stray dogs," it observed.

Referring to multiple reports of dog bites in schools, hospitals, railway stations and sports complexes, the Court observed that the recurrence of such incidents reflected serious administrative lapses and a systemic failure to secure citizens' right to safety under Article 21 of the Constitution. It noted that more than 90 percent of human rabies cases result from bites by domestic or stray dogs, with children, elderly persons and economically weaker sections bearing the brunt due to their vulnerability and lack of timely access to post-exposure treatment.

Case Title: In Re : 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025 (and connected cases)