On Tuesday, the Supreme Court resumed hearing the long-pending stray dogs matter, bringing into sharp focus the tension between animal welfare obligations and concerns of public safety. As the Bench assembled to take stock of compliance with its earlier directions, the proceedings revealed uneven implementation by States, unresolved infrastructure gaps, and growing anxiety over dog bite incidents in public spaces. The Court made it clear that it would hear all sides of the debate, those affected by dog attacks as well as those advocating animal protection, before charting the way forward.
The case was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
The case arose from a batch of petitions concerning the regulation of stray dogs and the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) regime across States. On November 7, the Apex Court had directed the removal of stray dogs from institutional premises such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations, with relocation to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination. The Court had further ordered that dogs picked up from such premises “should not be released back at the same location.”
On the previous date of hearing, when Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal sought an early listing, describing the ongoing ground-level treatment of dogs as very inhumane, Justice Sandeep Mehta had remarked that the Court would “play a video (during the next hearing) and ask what humanity.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta drew attention to competing claims in the matter, stating that “there are those who appear for dogs, and those who appear for humans.” Elaborating on residential concerns, he submitted that decisions within gated communities should rest with the collective will of residents. He observed that when a large majority of residents perceive stray dogs as a danger to children, the issue cannot be reduced to individual preference, adding that some regulatory mechanism allowing decisions “by way of votes” may be required.
Counsel appearing for one of the applicants clarified that the grievance was not directed against dogs as such, but against what was described as an escalating public safety issue. Referring to data placed before the Court, counsel submitted that the dog population was 6.2 crore and argued that the situation was going out of control. It was contended that the ABC Rules require amendment as they are contrary to the Act.
Ms. Vandana Jain, who has filed a modification application, told the Court that 55000 people had been bitten by dogs. While describing herself as a dog lover, she added, “I am also a human lover.” She alleged that despite a final order passed in March 2025 directing strict implementation of the ABC Rules, “nothing has been done by MP govt.” According to her, the problem had two dimensions, dog population and public awareness, and could not be addressed unless both were tackled together.
The Court engaged closely with the amicus curiae on the status of compliance across States. Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, assisting the Court, submitted that the creation of shelters and the functioning of ABC centres were distinct aspects requiring separate attention. He pointed out that infrastructure creation by municipal corporations must ensure adequate space for dogs and cattle, and that sterilisation in ABC centres had to be carried out at an optimal level. Referring to guidance from the Animal Welfare authorities, he noted that male dogs ought to be sterilised first, as it directly impacts reproduction.
Placing affidavit data before the Bench, the amicus stated that in government medical colleges, “there were 269 dogs, 98 removed,” and that out of 1,62,342 dogs, about 16000 had been shifted to permanent shelters. At the same time, he candidly informed the Court that “some affidavits are very disappointing.”
Justice Vikram Nath sought clarity on States that had failed to file affidavits, to which the amicus responded that Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Karnataka, described as 4 big states, had not filed affidavits till the previous night.
The Bench also adverted to safety concerns on highways. While noting submissions that the National Highways Authority of India had identified vulnerable stretches for animal ingress, Justice Vikram Nath observed, “But they could do fencing.” Justice Sandeep Mehta added that fencing was being implemented on super expressways and referred to two recent incidents involving Rajasthan High Court judges, stating that “one judge is still suffering from serious issues!”
In a lighter yet pointed remark on the scope of the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath stated, “We will hear everyone today. We will hear the victims, then the haters and the lovers both.”
The Apex Court did not pass any final directions during the hearing and continued to hear submissions from various stakeholders, including the amicus curiae, State representatives, and applicants. The matter remains under consideration, with the Court examining compliance with its earlier directions, the adequacy of shelters and ABC infrastructure, and the balance between animal welfare and human safety.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :