Supreme Court Upholds Earlier Order on Removal of Stray Dogs From Public Places Across India
New Delhi, 19th May 2026: The Supreme Court has upheld its earlier directions regarding the removal and management of stray dogs from public places across the country, observing that it cannot ignore repeated reports of attacks on children, senior citizens, and other members of the public.
The apex court dismissed all petitions and applications seeking modification or withdrawal of its November 7, 2025 order concerning the relocation and sterilisation of stray dogs. It also rejected challenges to the validity of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India for handling stray animals.
The court made strong observations over the failure of several states and Union Territories to develop adequate infrastructure to address the increasing stray dog population. It noted that ordinary citizens continue to face safety risks in public spaces and that even international visitors have reportedly been affected by stray dog attacks.
Directing authorities to strengthen animal control mechanisms, the court ordered that at least one fully functional Animal Birth Control (ABC) Centre be established in every district.
These centres must have proper infrastructure, surgical facilities, logistical support, and trained staff. States and Union Territories were instructed to implement the directions without delay and in both “letter and spirit.”
The Supreme Court further directed all states and Union Territories to ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin at government healthcare facilities. Authorities were also instructed to make arrangements for managing stray animals on national highways and expressways.
On the issue of aggressive and infected animals, the court observed that dogs suffering from incurable illnesses, rabies, or displaying dangerous and violent behaviour may be considered for culling in accordance with Animal Birth Control Rules and other applicable statutory provisions, with the objective of protecting human life and public safety.
The court also granted protection to officials implementing its directions, stating that no FIR or criminal proceedings should be initiated against officers acting in good faith while carrying out official duties under the court’s orders.
In a significant direction, the Supreme Court asked all High Courts across the country to take suo motu cognisance to monitor compliance with its directives. High Courts have been given liberty to expand or modify the implementation framework based on local conditions and urgent requirements, provided the core intent of the Supreme Court’s directions remains intact.
Courts were also asked to initiate appropriate action against officials found responsible for non-compliance, inaction, or deliberate disregard of the directions.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N. V. Anjaria. The bench had reserved its verdict on January 29 after hearing multiple applications in detail.
