Supreme Court Judgement on Stray Dog Management (2025 INSC 1018)

Date: August 22, 2025

Case Name: IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” (SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 5 OF 2025)

Court: Supreme Court of India (Three-Judge Bench)

Executive Summary:

This briefing document summarizes the Supreme Court’s detailed order issued on August 22, 2025, which modifies and clarifies previous directions regarding the management of stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), and expands its scope nationwide. The Court acknowledges the severe public safety concerns stemming from aggressive and rabid stray dogs, particularly for children and the elderly, while also seeking to balance these concerns with the welfare of animals and the existing legal framework of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.

The key decision is a partial stay and modification of the earlier August 11, 2025, directive that prohibited the release of sterilized and immunized stray dogs back onto the streets. The Court now mandates that treated dogs, unless rabid or aggressive, be released back into their original localities, in line with ABC Rules. It also introduces new directives for dedicated feeding spaces, a ban on street feeding, and financial contributions from “animal lovers” and NGOs to support infrastructure. The scope of the matter is broadened to include all States and Union Territories, and related pending High Court cases are to be transferred to the Supreme Court.

Main Themes and Important Ideas/Facts:

1. Public Safety vs. Animal Welfare Dichotomy:

• The core issue before the Court is the “right of the stray dogs to live on the streets, vis-à-vis, the safety and security of the citizens particularly the kids and elderly people from these very stray dogs, many of whom are suspected to be infected with the communicable disease, i.e., rabies.” (Para 4)
• The Court explicitly recognizes the “indisputable” fact that “human beings bitten by rabid dogs suffer indescribably, and many times, the infection proves to be fatal.” (Para 4)
• Newspaper reports cited by the Solicitor General estimate “approximately 37,15,713 dog bites occurred in India in 2024,” with lives lost due to trauma and rabies, causing “grave risk to the lives of children and elderly people.” (Para 16)

1. Initial Suo Moto Cognizance and Strict Directions (August 11, 2025):

• The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance on July 28, 2025, based on a Times of India report titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” following a 6-year-old girl’s death from rabies. (Para 1)
• The initial directions on August 11, 2025, were stringent:
• “Start picking up and rounding the stray dogs from all localities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, NOIDA, Faridabad, Gurugram as well as areas on the outskirts, and relocate these dogs into designated shelters/pounds.” (Para 12(i))
• “Immediately create dog shelters/pounds… and report to this Court the creation of such infrastructure all over the National Capital Region (NCR) within a period of eight-weeks.” (Para 12(ii))
• Crucially, “In no circumstances, should these stray dogs after their relocation be once again released back onto the streets.” (Para 12(iii))
• “The stray dogs shall be captured, sterilized, dewormed and immunized as required by Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 and as noted above, shall not be released back.” (Para 12(iv))
• Any “hindrance or obstruction” to these directions would be viewed as “contempt of this Court.” (Para 13)

1. Challenges and Concerns from “Animal Lovers” and NGOs:

• Several interlocutory applications were filed by “individuals and organisations working for the welfare of the stray dogs,” referred to as “animal lovers,” seeking a stay on the August 11th directions. (Para 3)
• Their primary argument was that the directive not to release sterilized and immunized dogs “is in clear violation of Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules framed under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.” This rule mandates releasing treated dogs “in the same area from which they were picked up.” (Para 11)
• Concerns were raised about harassment of those feeding stray dogs (Para 12) and “direct encroachment upon the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Expression guaranteed to the citizens under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 13)
• A significant fear was the “imminent risk that the stray dogs who are being picked up in compliance with this Court’s order may be culled” due to the municipal authorities’ lack of “logistic capability and wherewithal to create the large number of dog shelters/pounds.” (Para 14) They apprehended that a “large population of stray dogs, which might also include newborn puppies, is likely to be affected and may lose their lives.” (Para 14)

1. Government’s Stance and Challenges:

• The Solicitor General, Shri Tushar Mehta, acknowledged the “herculean and almost impossible” task of curbing dog bites and vaccinating dogs given the “huge population of stray dogs.” (Para 15)
• He argued that “sterilisation alone is insufficient, as it can neither prevent attacks from stray dogs nor can it prevent the rabies infection by dog bites because the immunised dogs with aggressive behaviour would still be capable of attacking and causing severe harm to the vulnerable citizens, if these animals are allowed to remain on the streets.” (Para 17)
• The government sought to uphold the August 11th order as “interim measures essentially required to protect the Right to Life of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 17)

1. Three-Judge Bench’s Balancing Act and Modifications (August 22, 2025):

• The three-Judge Bench clarified its intent: “there is not even the slightest doubt in our minds that the intent behind the order is salutary inasmuch as it works towards protecting the citizens at large from the attacks by the aggressive and rabid stray dogs.” (Para 23)
• However, it recognized the need for a “balancing exercise” to align the previous order “within the contour of the legal framework, i.e., the ABC Rules, 2023.” (Para 23)
• The Court explicitly stated that the previous mandate to keep all stray dogs in shelters “would require logistics of gargantuan proportions including manpower, shelters/pounds, veterinarians, cages and specially modified vehicles for transportation.” (Para 27)
• It also upheld the “scientific” and “compassionate” rationale of Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, which requires returning treated dogs to their original localities to prevent overcrowding and allow them to live in their familiar environment. (Para 28)

1. Key Modifications and New Directions:

• Abeyance of No-Release Rule: Directions 12(iii) and 12(iv) prohibiting release of picked-up strays are “kept in abeyance for the time being.” Sterilized, dewormed, and vaccinated dogs “shall be released back to the same area from which they were picked up.” (Para 33(b))
• Exclusion for Rabid/Aggressive Dogs: This relocation back to streets “shall not apply to the dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies, and those that display aggressive behaviour.” Such dogs “shall be sterilised and immunised, but under no circumstances should they be released back onto the streets.” They should be kept in “a separate pound/shelter.” (Para 33(b))
• Dedicated Feeding Spaces & Ban on Street Feeding: Municipal authorities must “forthwith commence an exercise for creating dedicated feeding spaces for the stray dogs in each municipal ward.” “Under no condition shall the feeding of stray dogs on the streets be permitted.” Violators “shall be liable to be proceeded against under the relevant legal framework.” (Para 33(d))
• Helpline for Violations: Each municipal authority must create “a dedicated helpline number for reporting incidents of violation of the above directions.” (Para 33(e))
• Obstruction of Public Servants: The previous contempt warning is reiterated and modified: “no individual or organisation shall cause any hindrance or obstruction in the effective implementation of the directions given above.” Obstructing public servants will lead to “prosecution.” (Para 33(f))
• Financial Contribution from “Animal Lovers” and NGOs: Individual dog lovers must deposit Rs. 25,000 and NGOs Rs. 2,00,000 with the Court Registry within 7 days, to be used for “creation of the infrastructure and facilities for the stray dogs.” Failure to deposit will prevent further appearance in the matter. (Para 33(g))
• Stray Dog Adoption: “Desirous animal lover/s shall be free to move the application to the concerned municipal body for adoption of the street dogs.” Adopters are responsible for ensuring adopted dogs “do not return to the streets.” (Para 33(h))
• Compliance Affidavit: Municipal authorities must file an affidavit with “complete statistics of resources, viz., dog pounds, veterinarians, dog catching personnel, specially modified vehicles/cages available as on date.” (Para 33(i))

1. Expansion of Scope:

• Recognizing that “the same issues… have either cropped up or are likely to exist in every State,” the Court proposes to “expand the scope of this matter beyond the confines of New Delhi and the NCR region.” (Para 34)
• All States and Union Territories are to be impleaded through their Animal Husbandry and local body Secretaries. (Para 35)
• All “numerous writ petitions/suo moto petitions” pending in various High Courts dealing with similar issues “shall stand transferred to this Court for analogous consideration.” (Para 36)

Next Steps: The matters are listed after eight weeks for “further directions and for receiving the compliance report.” (Para 37)

Reources:Supreme Court judgment on stray dogs Supreme Court judgment on stray dogs.pdf