New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday emphasised that India’s long-standing stray dog problem cannot be addressed through hasty or reactive measures, as it held a nearly two-and-a-half-hour hearing in a suo motu case while balancing concerns of public safety with statutory animal welfare protections.
A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria repeatedly stressed that both victims of dog bites and animal welfare advocates would be given a full and patient hearing before any final directions were issued.
The hearing will continue Thursday morning again.
The bench heard a range of voices: from parents of bitten children who appeared in person, to senior advocates and domain experts—and made it clear that procedural shortcuts would not be allowed in a matter involving “complex public safety and animal welfare issues”.
Justice Nath said that all stakeholders would be granted adequate opportunity to place their concerns on record, even as the court acknowledged the “harms and perils of dog bites” and the safety of children and citizens in public spaces.
Also Read: UGC tells universities to prevent entry of stray dogs in campus, calls for ’round-the-clock vigil’
Enforcing existing rules
From the outset, the bench orally indicated that the case is not about framing new law but about enforcing rules that have existed for decades but were never properly implemented.
The court observed its intent to ensure that all municipal bodies adhere to existing statutory frameworks so that roads and public spaces were made “clear and clean of dogs”. It reiterated earlier directions calling upon states to file compliance reports and cautioned that while some states responded meaningfully, others had not—against whom the court would be “harsh.”
Amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal informed the court that national-level authorities prepared detailed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to give effect to the court’s earlier orders, particularly in institutional areas and along highways where human-animal conflict has proved fatal.
The apex court was told that Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Punjab—some of the major states—were yet to file compliance affidavits.
AWBI SOP
In line with the SC’s November 2025 directions, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) circulated a SOP to all chief secretaries, laying down infrastructure and operational norms for managing stray dogs in their states.
The SOP, accessed by ThePrint, mandates shelters of specified sizes to house 100, 500 or 1,000 dogs, with a key safety requirement that the “fencing of such shelters should be of 6 feet height.”
Crucially, the SOP directs the “removal of dogs from public institutions” such as schools and hospitals, where they are to be shifted to designated shelters for sterilisation and vaccination. To control population growth, the AWBI has instructed authorities that the “focus should be on sterilisation of male dogs on priority basis and also on pack of dogs.”
NHAI SOP
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has also prepared an SOP following court directions. It has identified 1,317 vulnerable locations spanning 1,413 km where stray animals frequently cause accidents. Under the SOP, these stretches will be placed under “round-the-clock surveillance” through continuous patrolling.
Patrol teams have been instructed to guide animals to designated holding areas, while the national highway helpline 1033 is being integrated with the state emergency number 112 for enabling rapid response to animal-related incidents.
State compliance: A mixed picture
Compliance affidavits filed so far reveal stark contrasts among states. Haryana has constructed 92 dog shelters with capacity for 20,299 dogs and operates 694 gaushalas housing nearly four lakh cattle. Andhra Pradesh reported sterilising 1,03,684 dogs in 2025 and identifying 204 vulnerable highway stretches.
Despite mapping 1,62,342 stray dogs in primary schools, Maharashtra has removed only 16,829 dogs to permanent shelters. Kerala flagged “severe protests” from residents opposing Animal Birth Control (ABC) centres, including in Kannur district, stalling sterilisation efforts.
West Bengal’s capacity to sterilise only 193 dogs per day was flagged as inadequate for its size, while Jharkhand reported sterilising 1,89,525 dogs after the November 2025 order.
Sheltering vs release of dogs
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that shifting all stray dogs into shelters is “physically impossible, economically unfeasible and potentially dangerous for humans.” Such a move, he argued, would overwhelm infrastructure and finances, worsening safety rather than resolving it.
Former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, appearing for NALSAR Hyderabad, placed statistics on fencing of educational institutions pursuant to the November order. He urged the formation of a committee comprising animal husbandry heads from successful states and argued that dogs must be returned to original locations as per law, contending that the present restriction on release violates statutory rules.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing animal welfare organisations, challenged official dog bite data, stating that figures are inflated because “each injection dose is counted as a separate case.” According to him, actual bite incidents may be “5–7 times lower,” and policy driven by misinterpreted data could have “drastic and irreversible consequences.”
“Mass removal of dogs is hazardous. If you have 70 percent vaccinated, and 30 percent not vaccinated, then those dogs also get the rabies shield. So it’s important to release back vaccinated dogs,” he said, also advocating that dog lovers be empowered to assist municipal authorities.
Senior advocate Anand Grover cited educational institutions where sterilised, vaccinated dogs remaining in their territories under structured oversight led to negligible aggression incidents.
Previous SC orders
In August, 2025, a different bench ordered that stray dogs must be shifted away from residential localities in Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) and any organisation blocking the exercise would face “the strictest action”.
Setting an eight-week deadline for civic authorities to pick up all stray dogs from public spaces and house them in dedicated shelters, a bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and R.Mahadevan stressed that “all localities should be made free of stray dogs” and that “there should not be any compromise in undertaking any exercise.”
That order was later modified by the present three-judge bench. It mandated vaccination and release of sterilised dogs instead of permanent sheltering.
On 7 November, 2025 the top 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 sterilisation and vaccination. The three-judge bench of Justices Nath, Mehta, and Anjaria had also directed that dogs picked up from such places should not be released back at the same location.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: Delhi’s new stray dog management guidelines—no threatening feeders, infra boost for ABC centres