In a sweeping judgment addressing the growing stray dog crisis across the country, the Supreme Court upheld the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) in November 2025 and issued extensive nationwide directions for implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework, while warning States, municipal authorities, and civic bodies that continued non-compliance with court directions could invite contempt proceedings, disciplinary action, and tortious liability.

The judgment comes amid increasing nationwide controversy over stray dog attacks, rising dog bite incidents, and disputes regarding relocation, sterilisation, vaccination, and handling of aggressive street dogs. While animal welfare groups have consistently opposed forcible relocation or harsh measures against stray dogs, citing protections under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the ABC Rules, resident welfare associations and victims’ groups have repeatedly raised concerns over public safety, especially after attacks on children, elderly citizens, and pedestrians in public spaces.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed all interlocutory applications (IAs) challenging the validity of the SOP issued by the AWBI pursuant to earlier directions of the Court. Reading out the operative findings in open court, the Bench observed:

“This Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the SOP dated 27th November 2025 issued by the AWBI in compliance with the directions of this Court.”

The Court held that the challenges to the SOP, both on grounds of excessive delegation and alleged inconsistency with the statutory scheme, did not merit acceptance. Consequently, all applications challenging the SOPs stood dismissed.

Institutional Failure to Implement the ABC Framework

The Court turned critical to States and Union Territories for decades of institutional failure in implementing the ABC framework. Referring to the fact that the framework was first introduced in 2001 and later strengthened through the ABC Rules, 2023, the Court noted a “discernible absence of sustained, systematic and incremental efforts” to create adequate infrastructure in proportion to the steadily increasing stray dog population.

According to the Court, implementation of sterilisation and vaccination programmes remained “sporadic, underfunded, and uneven across jurisdictions,” lacking continuity, monitoring mechanisms, institutional depth, planning, and scientific coordination. The Bench observed that such failures had significantly undermined the effectiveness of the statutory framework and defeated its intended objective of creating a long-term coordinated and scientifically driven mechanism for population control and mitigation of public health risks.

The Court further remarked that had States and Union Territories acted with due diligence and foresight from the inception of the framework, the present situation would not have assumed such alarming proportions.

Calling the present situation “reactive and crisis-driven,” the Court observed that authorities had failed to adopt a proactive, structured and sustained approach, thereby aggravating the stray dog menace and associated public safety risks.

The Bench noted that prolonged inaction and absence of institutional commitment had caused the problem to assume dimensions warranting urgent and systemic intervention.

Referring to reports and official data placed before it after reserving judgment, the Court recorded alarming figures from several States. It noted that Rajasthan had witnessed nearly 1.84 lakh dog bite incidents within approximately three months, including several attacks on children causing grievous injuries and mauling incidents. Karnataka, according to the Court, reported approximately 2.63 lakh dog bite cases within the first four months of 2026 along with 17 deaths attributable to such incidents. The Court also noted that over 2.5 lakh dog bite incidents and 34 deaths had been reported in Karnataka during the previous year.

The Bench additionally referred to incidents reported from Surat involving a German tourist allegedly attacked by stray dogs while visiting the city. According to the Court, such incidents adversely affect not only public safety but also “public confidence in civic administration and urban governance.”

The Court further took note of reports concerning repeated dog bite incidents at Delhi’s IGI Airport. The judgment recorded that airport authorities themselves had acknowledged at least 31 dog bite incidents across airport terminals since January 2026 involving aggressive stray dogs within airport premises. The Court observed that the recurrence of such incidents at one of the country’s busiest international airports demonstrated the “grave inadequacy” of existing containment and public safety measures.

In some of the strongest constitutional observations in the judgment, the Court stated:

“The Constitution of India does not envisage a society where children, elderly persons and vulnerable citizens are compelled to survive at the mercy of physical strength, chance or circumstance owing to the failure of the State machinery to discharge its constitutional and statutory obligations.”

The Court warned that if the present situation continued unchecked, it could lead to “a regression towards the Darwinian theory of evolution, namely the survival of the fittest would effectively govern civic life and public spaces.” Such a condition, according to the Court, would be “wholly incompatible with a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.”

Directions to Tackle Stray Dog Menace

Emphasising that Article 21 imposes a positive constitutional obligation upon States to protect life and safety, the Court observed that the right to live with dignity necessarily includes the right of citizens to access public spaces without fear of dog attacks or exposure to life-threatening incidents. The Court remarked that the State “cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate.”

The Supreme Court thereafter issued an elaborate set of mandatory directions to States, Union Territories, local bodies, municipal corporations, and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

Among the principal directions issued were:

• Immediate augmentation of infrastructure necessary for effective implementation of the ABC framework, including expansion of sterilisation and vaccination capacity;
• Establishment of at least one fully functional ABC centre in every district equipped with veterinary infrastructure, trained personnel, surgical facilities, logistics support, and proper record-keeping systems;
• Expansion of the number of ABC centres proportionate to population density and territorial extent of districts wherever necessary;
• Strengthening of shelter facilities, vaccination drives, and veterinary services through coordinated action by State departments and local agencies;
• Ensuring adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin in all government medical facilities;
• Formulation of mechanisms for handling and relocation of stray cattle and aggressive animals from highways, airports, transit spaces, and public utility areas;
• Creation of dedicated monitoring and coordination frameworks involving animal welfare organisations, Goshalas, municipal authorities, and veterinary agencies.

The Court also directed the NHAI to formulate a comprehensive and time-bound mechanism to address the presence of stray dogs and animals on national highways and expressways, including deployment of specialised transport vehicles and establishment of shelter facilities.

Significantly, the Court observed that in areas where aggressive dog attacks and bite incidents had reached “alarming proportions,” authorities may undertake assessment through qualified veterinary experts and take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia in cases involving “rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous/aggressive dogs,” strictly in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the ABC Rules, 2023.

Implementation Procedure

The Bench made it emphatically clear that officers and officials implementing the Court’s directions in good faith would be entitled to legal protection. The Court observed that no FIRs, criminal proceedings, or coercive action should ordinarily be initiated against such officers for bona fide actions undertaken pursuant to implementation of the Court’s orders, except in cases involving mala fides, gross abuse of authority, or deliberate illegality.

At the same time, the Court warned that continued non-compliance or apathy in implementing the Court’s directions would render municipal officials, local authorities, and State officers liable for contempt proceedings, disciplinary proceedings, and tortious liabilities.

In an important structural direction, the Court delegated future monitoring of implementation to High Courts across the country. It directed every High Court to register suo motu proceedings for monitoring compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions and earlier orders dated August 22, 2025 and November 7, 2025. The Court clarified that the matters should preferably be heard by Division Benches and that High Courts would be empowered to tailor additional context-specific directions suited to local conditions without diluting the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment.

The Court directed Chief Secretaries and departmental secretaries of all States and Union Territories to file updated compliance affidavits before the respective High Courts on or before August 7, 2026. The Union of India and the NHAI were similarly directed to place compliance reports before jurisdictional High Courts concerning public spaces and highways falling within their domain.

All transferred petitions and applications pending before the Supreme Court in relation to stray dog management were directed to be transmitted to the respective High Courts and tagged with the suo motu proceedings to be registered there.

The Bench fixed November 17, 2026, for receiving consolidated compliance reports and directed that the matter would “effectively remain closed except for receiving the compliance reports.”

Before concluding, the Court also placed on record its appreciation to the amicus curiae for the assistance rendered during the proceedings, observing that the submissions and materials placed before it had greatly facilitated and informed adjudication of the issues arising herein.

Background of the case

The case was originated as a suo motu proceeding initiated by the Supreme Court in July 2025 after taking cognisance of a Times of India report titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”, which highlighted the death of a six-year-old girl due to rabies following a stray dog attack in Delhi.

Initially heard by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, the matter expanded into a nationwide examination of the stray dog menace, public safety concerns, dog bite incidents, and implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. The Court noted alarming statistics showing over 37 lakh reported dog bite cases across India in 2024, including more than 25,000 cases in Delhi alone.

In a series of significant orders passed in August 2025, the Supreme Court directed authorities in Delhi-NCR to begin capturing stray dogs, sterilising and vaccinating them, and housing them in shelters instead of releasing them back into public spaces. The Court observed that “our streets/public places should be free from stray dogs” and stressed that public safety, particularly of children, elderly persons, and visually impaired individuals, could not be compromised.

The Court also warned that any individuals or organisations obstructing authorities from removing stray dogs could face contempt proceedings. It directed civic bodies across Delhi, Noida, Gurugram, Ghaziabad, and Faridabad to establish dedicated dog shelters and maintain records of captured and sterilised dogs.

Subsequently, multiple petitions pending before various High Courts on stray dog management and public safety were transferred to the Supreme Court for consolidated adjudication.