The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its earlier directions requiring the removal of stray dogs from sensitive institutional areas such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots and railway stations, holding that the constitutional obligation to protect human life and safety cannot be diluted by an expansive interpretation of animal welfare regulations. 

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria noted that increasing incidents of dog attacks and stray animal intrusions across the country had emerged as a serious public safety issue. Taking judicial notice of the growing number of cases involving children being attacked in schools, patients being bitten in hospital premises, and similar incidents occurring in sports facilities and transport hubs, the Court observed that such circumstances represent a systemic failure of administrative authorities and directly impact citizens’ right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

According to the Court, the problem is not merely one of isolated incidents but stems from multiple structural deficiencies, including poor implementation of sterilisation programmes, inadequate waste management systems, weak coordination between institutions and municipal bodies, and lack of public awareness regarding dog-bite prevention and post-bite treatment procedures. The Court observed that these factors necessitate coordinated institutional responses rather than fragmented solutions. 

One of the key controversies before the Court related to its earlier direction prohibiting the re-release of stray dogs into the same institutional areas from which they had been removed. Animal welfare groups argued that this requirement was contrary to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, particularly Rule 11(19), which requires sterilised and vaccinated dogs to be released back to the same locality from where they were captured. They contended that the statutory framework adopts a Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release (CSVR) model and that relocating dogs could create a “vacuum effect,” leading to migration of unsterilised dogs into the area and potentially increasing conflicts. 

The petitioners also highlighted practical difficulties in implementing large-scale relocation. It was argued that creating sufficient shelters and maintaining relocated dogs would require enormous financial resources and infrastructure. Concerns were also raised regarding the risk of authorities resorting to unlawful practices if adequate facilities were unavailable. 

However, supporting parties argued that the existing Animal Birth Control framework had failed to control the stray dog population effectively and that the rise in dog-bite incidents demonstrated the inadequacy of the current model. They asserted that unrestricted presence of stray dogs in public spaces adversely affects citizens’ rights to mobility, safety and a dignified life under Article 21. 

The Supreme Court, while analyzing the issue, rejected the argument that stray dogs possess an absolute or enforceable right to remain in every location where they are found. The Court clarified that Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules, which classifies “street dogs” and “community owned dogs,” is only a classificatory provision and does not create any vested right allowing animals to occupy all categories of spaces indefinitely. 

The Court further interpreted Rule 11(19) concerning release of dogs back to the “same place or locality” by reading it alongside the parent legislation, namely the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It held that the term “same locality” must be understood in the context of publicly accessible spaces such as streets, roads and similar areas, and cannot be stretched to include sensitive institutional or restricted-access premises. 

In significant observations, the Court stated that hospitals, schools, colleges, sports complexes and similar institutions are designed to maintain safe, secure and hygienic environments, especially considering the presence of children, patients and other vulnerable sections of society. Allowing unrestricted presence or reintroduction of stray dogs into such places would undermine their very purpose and create practical difficulties in ensuring public safety. 

Consequently, the Court held that stray dogs found in institutional premises cannot be treated as “street dogs” for purposes of mandatory re-release under Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules. Reaffirming its previous directions, the Court ruled that such animals can be removed and relocated without being reintroduced into the same institutional spaces.

Case Details

Case Title: In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”

Citation: JURISHOUR-1295-SC-2026

Case No.: Suo Moto Writ Petition(Civil) No(S). 5 Of 2025

Date: 19/05/2026

Read More: DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court