Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1238

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, N. V. Anjaria, JJ.
In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”
Suo Moto Writ Petition(Civil) No(S). 5 of 2025 With Writ Petition(Civil) No(S). 784 of 2025 SLP(Civil) No(S). 14763 of 2024 And SLP(Civil) No(S). 17623 of 2025
Decided On : 22-08-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Percival B, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mahalaxshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Ms. Meneka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jasmine P, Adv. Mr. Avinash Tripathi, Ms. Rupali Jain, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Pritish Tekhandani, Adv. Mr. Parvesh A, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mr. Satya Ojha, Adv. Mr. Divyam Khera Adv. Mr. Rachit Sood, Adv. Mr. A Chinni, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Adv. Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Moksh P, Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Kripalani, Adv. Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, AOR Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv. Ms. Smiti Verma, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. G.S Makker, AOR Mr. Kamal, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Diwedi, Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, AOR Mr. Raghav Sood, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anant Ram Mishra, Adv. Mr. Lareb Habib Ansari, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Sinh C. Solanki, Adv. Mr. Anant Ram Mishra, AOR Mr. Raghav Sood, Adv. Mr. Rajuv Talwar, Adv. Ms. Urvashi Misra, Adv. By Courts Motion, AOR Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Parth Semwal, Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR Ms. Purti Gupta, AOR Ms. Purti Gupta (arguing Counsel), Adv. Ms. Henna George, Adv. Ms. Sunidhi Sah, Adv. Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Mr. Udian Sharma, AOR Mr. Vishesh K. Sapra, Adv. Mr. Manav Mitra, Adv. Mr. Sahil Saraswat, Adv. Ms. Harsha Sadhwani, Adv. Ms. Karuna Nundy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr./Ms. Ishan Karki, Adv. Mr. Amanpreet Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv. Ms. Shivangshi Mitra, Adv. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR Mr. Avinash Mathew, Adv. Mr. Labeeb Faaeq, Adv. Ms. Nandini Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Esha Dutta, Adv. Ms. Shaalini Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Gehena Gambani, Adv. 3 Mr. Shalka Patil, Adv. Mr. Amaan R, Adv. Trilegal Advocates Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Sr. Adv./Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Siddhartha K. Garg, Adv. Mr. Sunil Prakash Sharma, AOR Mr. Rahul Mohod, Adv. Mr. Raju Sonkar, Adv. Mr. Rohit Mohod, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Gyan, Adv. Ms. Aneeta Yadav, Adv. Mr. L.n. Sharma, Adv. Petitioner-in-person Mr. Abhik Chimni, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kripalani, Adv. Ms. Sonali Chopra, Adv. Ms. Damini Chawla, Adv. Ms. Mogiyira, Adv. Ms.O. Hoda, Adv. Mr. Midha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajshekar R, Sr. Adv. Ms. Gauri Puri, Adv. Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Tanvir Nayar, AOR Mr. Abhinav Vashist, Sr. Adv. Mr./Ms. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhurima Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Akshita Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Deepti Rathi, Adv. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kalra Sukhda Kishore, AOR Ms. Shreya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Varun Khetwani, Adv. Ms. Ananya Arora, Adv. Mr. Deepin Sahni, Adv. Ms. Vaasyati Bezbaruah, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Kirplani, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr./Ms. Omai T, Adv. Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Usman Ghani Khan, Adv. Mr. S. Trehan, Adv. Mr. M. Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul K, Adv. Mr. Sunil Prakash Sharma, AOR Mr. Rahul Mohod, Adv. Mr. Raju Sonkar, Adv. Mr. Rohit Mohod, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Gyan, Adv. Ms. Aneeta Yadav, Adv. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nanita Sharma, Petitioner-in-person Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Padmini, Adv. Mr/Ms. Sabnam, Adv. Mr. Karl P Rustomkhan, Adv. Mr. Parv Arora, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. Mr. Rohit Swarup, Adv. Mr. Ameet Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rohilla, Adv. Ms. Ashu Tomar, Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Deepti Rathi, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav G, Adv. Ms. Monica Lakhanpal, Adv. Ms. K Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akash Chatterjee, AOR Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kalra Sukhda Kishore, AOR Ms. Shreya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Varun Khetwani, Adv. Ms. Ananya Arora, Adv. Mr. Deepin Sahni, Adv. Ms. Vaasyati Bezbaruah, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Menace of stray dogs – Before any direction for impounding entire stray dog population is given, it would be necessary to have a look at existing infrastructure and human resources available with municipal bodies.

Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 32 – Menace of stray dogs – Right of stray dogs to live on streets, vis-à-vis, safety and security of citizens particularly, kids and elderly people – Direction given in Order dated 11th August, 2025, prohibiting release of treated and vaccinated dogs seems to be too harsh – Before any direction for impounding entire stray dog population is given, it would be necessary to have a look at existing infrastructure and human resources available with municipal bodies – A blanket direction to pick up all strays and place them in dog shelters/pounds without evaluating existing infrastructure may lead to a catch-22 situation because such directions may be impossible to comply with – Directions contained in Paras 12(iii) and 12(iv), to the extent that they prohibit release of picked up strays, shall be kept in abeyance for the time being – Dogs that are picked up shall be sterilized, dewormed, vaccinated, and released back to same area from which they were picked up – This relocation shall not apply to dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies, and those that display aggressive behaviour – Such dogs shall be sterilized and immunized, but under no circumstances should they be released back onto the streets – As far as possible, such stray dogs shall be kept in a separate pound/shelter after sterilization and immunization – Elaborate directions issued. (Paras 31, 32 and 33)
Facts of the case:
The issue involved in these petitions placed before the three-Judge Bench centres around the right of the stray dogs to live on the streets, vis-à-vis, the safety and security of the citizens particularly kids and elderly people from these very stray dogs, many of whom are suspected to be infected with the communicable disease, i.e., rabies. It is indisputable that human beings bitten by rabid dogs suffer indescribably, and many times, the infection proves to be fatal.
Findings of Court:
Desirous animal lover/s shall be free to move the application to the concerned municipal body for adoption of the street dogs, upon which the identified/selected street dog/s shall be tagged and given in adoption to the applicant. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant(s) to ensure that the adopted stray dogs do not return to the streets.Municipal authorities shall file an affidavit of compliance with complete statistics of resources, viz., dog pounds, veterinarians, dog catching personnel, specially modified vehicles/cages available as on date for the purpose of compliance of the ABC Rules.
Result : Directions issued.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of a news report concerning stray dogs and their impact on public safety, particularly for children (!) . - Initial directions were issued to pick up stray dogs, relocate them to shelters, and not release them back onto the streets (!) (!) . - Animal welfare organizations argued that the directions conflicted with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which mandate the release of sterilized dogs back to their original areas (!) . - Concerns were raised about the logistical challenges and potential for culling of stray dogs due to insufficient shelter infrastructure (!) . - The Court acknowledged the need to protect citizens from rabid and aggressive stray dogs while also considering the legal framework of the ABC Rules (!) . - Directions prohibiting the release of treated and vaccinated dogs were deemed too harsh without assessing municipal body infrastructure and human resources (!) (!) . - The Court modified the previous directions, keeping the prohibition on release in abeyance and mandating the release of sterilized, dewormed, and vaccinated dogs back to their original areas, with exceptions for rabid or aggressive dogs (!) (!) . - Municipal authorities are directed to establish dedicated feeding spaces for stray dogs and prohibit feeding on streets (!) . - Animal lovers and NGOs approaching the court are required to deposit a sum of money for the creation of infrastructure for stray dogs (!) . - The scope of the matter was expanded to include all States and Union Territories, requiring them to report on their compliance with ABC Rules (!) (!) .

What are the rights of stray dogs versus the safety of citizens?

What is the feasibility of implementing directions for impounding stray dogs without evaluating existing infrastructure?

How to balance the implementation of Animal Birth Control Rules with the safety of citizens?

ORDER :

1. A Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court took suo moto cognizance on 28th July 2025, of a news report published in The Times of India, Delhi Edition, titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”.¹[Koushiki Saha, “Delhi hounded by strays, kids pay price: Girl (6) dies of rabies after dog attack, family alleges official apathy”, (Time of India, 28 July, 2025) can be accessed here < https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-hounded-bystrays-kids-pay-price-girl-6-dies-of-rabies-after-dog-attack-family-allegesofficial-apathy/articleshow/122938488.cms>]

2. Pursuant to the taking of suo moto cognizance, the matter came to be listed before the Bench on 11th August 2025, on which, the following directions were issued: -

(i) Start picking up and rounding the stray dogs from all localities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, NOIDA, Faridabad, Gurugram as well as areas on the outskirts, and relocate these dogs into designated shelters/pounds.

(ii) The appropriate authorities of NCT of Delhi, NOIDA, Ghaziabad, Gurugram & Faridabad are directed to immediately create dog shelters/pounds and report to this Court the creation of such infrastructure all over the National Capital Region (NCR). A report in this regard shall be filed before this Court within a period of eight-weeks.

(iii) In no circumstances, should these stray dogs after their relocation be once again released back onto the streets. In this regard proper records should be maintained by the concerned authorities regularly.

(iv) The stray dogs shall be captured, sterilized, dewormed and immunized as required by Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 and as noted above, shall not be released back. The dog shelters/pounds should have sufficient personnel to sterilize, deworm and immunize stray dogs and also for looking after the stray dogs who would be detained.

(v) We further make it clear that both the exercise of rounding up of stray dogs as well as the creation of necessary infrastructure in the form of shelters/pounds for the relocation, sterilization, deworming and immunization, shall be undertaken simultaneously. We do not want to hear about even a semblance of lethargy from the concerned authorities on the pre-text of awaiting the creation of shelters/pounds, otherwise, we will proceed to take strict action against these authorities. All authorities are directed to immediately begin the picking up stray dogs and in the same breadth creation of appropriate and adequate shelter homes and pounds across the National Capital Region.

13. Any hindrance or obstruction that may be caused by any individual or organization in the smooth and effective implementation of our aforesaid directions will be viewed as contempt of this Court and we shall proceed to take appropriate action in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied)

3. It may be noted that, in the intervening period, several interlocutory applications for intervention came to be filed purportedly by individuals and organisations working for the welfare of the stray dogs²[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘animal lovers’.], seeking a stay on the directions contained in the order dated 11th August, 2025.

4. The issue involved in these petitions placed before the three-Judge Bench centres around the right of the stray dogs to live on the streets, vis-à-vis, the safety and security of the citizens particularly the kids and elderly people from these very stray dogs, many of whom are suspected to be infected with the communicable disease, i.e., rabies. It is indisputable that human beings bitten by rabid dogs suffer indescribably, and many times, the infection proves to be fatal.

5. For better understanding, a brief description of the issues raised in the other petitions apart from the Suo Moto Writ Pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 1238

IMPORTANT POINTMenace of stray dogs – Before any direction for impounding entire stray dog population is given, it would be necessary to have a look at existing infrastructure and human resources available with municipal bodies.

What are the rights of stray dogs versus the safety of citizens?

What is the feasibility of implementing directions for impounding stray dogs without evaluating existing infrastructure?

How to balance the implementation of Animal Birth Control Rules with the safety of citizens?

Related Judgments

In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” VS . - 2025 6 Supreme 321

In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” VS . - 2026 Supreme(SC) 552

In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” VS . - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1199

T. M. Irshad VS State of Kerala - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 166

Maya D. Chablani vs Radha Mittal

Hope for Critters Managing Trustee RA. Kirthana vs Honble Madras High Court - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19459

Mala Grama Panchayath Represented By Its Secretary vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2342

Seawoods Estates Ltd. vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 351769

Muthuraja vs The District Collector - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76277

Compassion Unlimited Plus Action, AN N. G. O Trust VS State Of Karnataka - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 61

IMPORTANT POINT
Menace of stray dogs – Before any direction for impounding entire stray dog population is given, it would be necessary to have a look at existing infrastructure and human resources available with municipal bodies.