The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that criminal proceedings should ordinarily not be initiated against authorities or officials tasked with implementing its directions aimed at curbing stray dog attacks across the country.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria further held that rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous and aggressive dogs may be euthanised by competent authorities, subject to assessment by qualified veterinary experts and in strict compliance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, and other applicable laws.
The Court clarified that government officials acting in good faith to implement its directions would be entitled to legal protection, and that an FIR against such officials should only be registered if there is a prima facie case of mala fide intent or gross abuse of authority.
Emphasising the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench said the right to live with dignity includes the right of citizens to move freely in public spaces without fear of physical harm or life-threatening incidents such as dog attacks.
The Bench noted that the State cannot remain a passive spectator while preventable threats to human life continue unabated.
The Court noted that it could not ignore the disturbing reality across India, where young children have been mauled, senior citizens attacked, ordinary people left unsafe in public areas, and international tourists targeted in similar incidents.
The observations came after the Court found that implementation of the ABC Rules since their inception had been sporadic, underfunded, and uneven across the country, leading to a reactive and crisis-driven approach.
The Court noted that the crisis would not have reached such alarming levels if States and Union Territories had shown foresight. It emphasized that they should have properly implemented the ABC framework from the start by expanding sterilization capacities, running sustained vaccination drives, and building adequate infrastructure.
The Court observed that stray dog attacks and dog bite incidents continue to occur with at an unsettling rate and intensity and have serious human, societal, and public health implications.
It further warned that continued non-compliance with its directions would invite strict action.
The Court warned that any ongoing neglect or failure to implement its directives, or those issued by the High Courts, will be met with strict consequences. Officials from municipal bodies and state departments who fail to comply will face severe legal actions, including contempt of court, disciplinary proceedings, and civil liabilities.
To ensure effective implementation of the ABC Rules and address stray animal issues, the Court issued a series of directions, including:
States to strengthen and implement the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) framework and rules;
Establishment of at least one fully functional ABC centre in every district;
Expansion of ABC centres based on population density;
Time-bound implementation of measures to ensure public safety in public places;
Adequate availability of anti-rabies medicines;
Action by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to address stray cattle on highways;
Creation of a monitoring and coordination framework by the NHAI.
The issue of stray dog management had gained national attention last year after Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan directed Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs, triggering protests from animal rights groups.
That order was later modified by the present three-judge Bench, which shifted the focus towards vaccination, sterilisation, and release of stray dogs in accordance with the ABC Rules. The scope of the case was subsequently expanded.
On November 7, 2025, the Court had directed States and the NHAI to remove stray animals from highways and institutional areas such as hospitals, schools, and educational institutions. It also ordered fencing of government and private educational and healthcare institutions within eight weeks to prevent stray dog attacks, while directing that dogs picked up from such premises should not be released back there.
Several petitions challenging the November 7 order were later filed, and judgment on those pleas had been reserved on January 29. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court further directed all High Courts to register suo-motu cases for monitoring compliance with the directions issued both today and in earlier orders. Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories have been directed to file compliance reports before the respective High Courts by August 7
The post Stray dogs: Supreme Court permits euthanasia for aggressive dogs, public safety first priority appeared first on India Legal.