THE SUPREME COURT ON FRIDAY modified its August 11 directions on stray dogs, clarifying that captured dogs must be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated, and then released back to the same localities from where they were picked up — except those suffering from rabies, suspected to be rabid, or showing aggressive behaviour. At the same time, the Court prohibited public feeding of stray dogs in streets and mandated the creation of dedicated feeding points, while signalling the need for a uniform national policy on stray dog management.
A three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria said that while public safety is paramount, the issue requires a “holistic approach” that balances human concerns with animal welfare. It stayed the August 11 order of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, which had required all stray dogs picked up in Delhi-NCR to be permanently housed in shelters and not returned to the streets.
Expanding the scope of the issue making it pan-India, the Court said that municipal bodies across the country must ensure that only sterilised and immunised dogs are returned to their original areas. Rabid or dangerously aggressive animals may be quarantined or kept in shelters. “Dogs that are picked up shall be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated and released back to the same area,” the Bench directed.
This marks a significant departure from the August 11 ruling, which had barred the release of stray dogs under any circumstance. The Court stressed that modifying the earlier order was necessary to align with the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules and to adopt a practical framework for coexistence.
A three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria said that while public safety is paramount, the issue requires a “holistic approach” that balances human concerns with animal welfare.
The Bench also ordered that each municipal authority must create dedicated feeding spaces for stray dogs in every ward, taking into account the dog population. Notice boards must clearly state that feeding is allowed only in such areas. Feeding on public roads and streets will not be permitted.
“Persons found feeding dogs in violation of this direction shall be liable to action under the relevant framework,” the order noted, adding that helplines must be set up for reporting violations.
Expanding the issue beyond Delhi-NCR, the Bench impleaded all States, Union Territories, Secretaries of Animal Husbandry departments, and municipal corporations for compliance with the ABC Rules. It also noted that all similar cases pending before High Courts would be transferred to the Supreme Court, paving the way for the formulation of a comprehensive national policy on stray dogs.
Municipal bodies were asked to continue creating shelters and dog pounds with adequate capacity, staff, CCTV monitoring, and medical facilities. Overcrowding must be avoided, vulnerable dogs housed separately, and adoption encouraged under the Animal Welfare Board’s 2022 protocol, the Court directed.
The Court also required individuals and organisations participating in the litigation to contribute financially. Each individual petitioner must deposit Rs 25,000 and each NGO Rs 2 lakh with the Court registry, to be used for developing infrastructure for stray dog management.
Further, those desiring to adopt dogs may apply to municipal authorities. Adopted animals must be tagged and permanently cared for, with no return to public spaces allowed.
The suo motu proceedings began after the Court took cognisance of a July 28 news report titled “City hounded by strays and kids pay price”. On August 11, Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan ordered Delhi-NCR to clear localities of stray dogs within eight weeks, house them in shelters and ensure none were released back.
In its detailed order, the Bench noted that while compassion for animals is part of Indian law, the safety of citizens — particularly children, the elderly, and visually impaired persons — cannot be compromised.
The order sparked widespread protests from animal rights groups and prompted concerns over conflicts with earlier Supreme Court rulings emphasising compassion and sterilisation rather than removal.
On August 13, lawyers pointed out the conflicting orders before Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, who promptly constituted a special three-judge Bench. After a hearing on August 14, the Bench reserved order and has now issued the modified guidelines.
In its detailed order, the Bench noted that while compassion for animals is part of Indian law, the safety of citizens — particularly children, the elderly, and visually impaired persons — cannot be compromised. At the same time, it underscored that co-existence is central to constitutional values and international standards of animal welfare.
The Court also reiterated that obstructing municipal authorities during dog-catching operations would invite contempt. “No individual or organisation shall cause hindrance to the effective implementation of these directions,” it said.
The directions signal the Court’s intention to evolve a nationwide regulatory framework balancing public safety and animal rights. By extending the case pan-India, prohibiting street feeding, mandating designated spaces, and insisting on sterilisation-and-release rather than permanent sheltering, the Court has attempted to harmonise conflicting judicial approaches and move towards a uniform policy.