indicated that parties may file brief written submissions within one week, bringing to a close hearings that traversed issues of public safety, public health, animal welfare, constitutional obligations, and administrative enforcement.
The Apex Court cautioned that it would not hesitate to record adverse findings against states and local authorities that filed vague, evasive, or non-committal affidavits, particularly where statutory duties under municipal laws and public health frameworks had not been discharged effectively.
In July 2025, the top court of the country took cognisance of media reports highlighting a sharp rise in dog bite incidents and rabies cases, especially affecting children in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Terming the issue one of serious public concern, the Court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
In earlier orders, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to direct civic authorities in Delhi to remove stray dogs from public spaces and institutional areas, including schools, hospitals, and railway stations, and to house them in designated shelters. It made clear that indiscriminate release of such animals was impermissible, particularly where public safety was at risk.
During the hearings, the Court examined the implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023; and various municipal statutes and public health regulations. The Bench repeatedly underscored that while animal welfare enjoyed statutory and constitutional recognition, it could not override the state’s non-derogable obligation to protect human life and safety under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It also considered competing submissions on whether sterilisation alone was sufficient to address the crisis, or whether relocation, confinement, and stricter enforcement measures were required in high-risk zones.
Submissions by the Amicus Curiae brought to light significant disparities in the responses of different States. Punjab and Rajasthan came under judicial scrutiny for failing to place before the Court clear, data-backed action plans, despite claiming budgetary allocations, shelter facilities, and administrative committees. The Bench expressed dissatisfaction with the absence of verifiable outcomes on the ground.
Tamil Nadu’s affidavit revealed that despite substantial allocations for shelters and sterilisation programmes, the state lacked fully functional government-run dog pounds, prompting concern over institutional capacity. Uttar Pradesh, on the other hand, reported large-scale sterilisation efforts and infrastructure creation, which the Court acknowledged, while cautioning that sustained implementation was necessary to achieve population control.
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) apprised the Bench about vulnerable highway stretches prone to accidents involving stray animals. At the Court’s suggestion, NHAI agreed to explore technological interventions, including a citizen-facing application for real-time reporting of stray animals on highways. The Bench also emphasised the need for coordination between highway authorities and local bodies to ensure timely removal of animals from accident-prone zones.
The Counsel appearing for the Union government informed the Court about the appointment of nodal officers across ministries and the provision of financial assistance under the National Health Mission for rabies prevention and capacity building.
While acknowledging that public health was primarily a state subject under the Seventh Schedule, the Court remained focused on outcomes rather than policy assurances.
During the proceedings, some counsels challenged the validity of the ABC Rules, while others defended sterilisation as the only scientifically accepted method of population control, cautioning against indiscriminate removal due to the ‘vacuum effect’.
The Bench observed that compassion for animals, recognised under Article 51A(g), must be harmonised with the constitutional mandate to safeguard human life, dignity, and security.
The post Supreme Court reserves verdict in suo motu stray dog case appeared first on India Legal.