SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” – Appellant
Suo Moto Writ Petition(Civil) No(s). 5 OF 2025 With SLP(Civil) No(s). 14763 of 2024 SLP(Civil) No(s). 17623 of 2025 Writ Petition(Civil) No(s). 784 of 2025 SLP(Civil) Diary No. 45707 of 2025 T.C. (Civil) NO. 140 OF 2025 Contempt Petition (C) NO(S). 749 OF 2025 IN SLP(Civil) NO(S). 14763 OF 2024 T.C. (Civil) No. 147/2025 T.C. (Civil) No. 145/2025 T.C. (Civil) No. 146/2025 T.C. (Civil) No. 144/2025 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1153/2025 T.C. (Civil) No. 2/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 4/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 5/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 8/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 3/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 12/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 9/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 13/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 10/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 14/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 6/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 11/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 15/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 7/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 1/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 18/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 16/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 17/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 19/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 21/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 22/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 20/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 27/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 24/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 23/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 28/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 31/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 29/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 32/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 37/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 26/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 38/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 25/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 41/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 33/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 40/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 39/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 42/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 34/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 36/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 35/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 50/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 47/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 48/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 46/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 45/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 44/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 49/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 43/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 55/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 59/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 60/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 51/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 52/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 54/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 61/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 56/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 57/2026 T.C. (Civil) No. 53/2026
Decided On : 19-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of judicial intervention regarding stray animal menace. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. competing interests between animal welfare statutory framework and public safety. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 3. harmonious interpretation of abc rules 2023 and exercise of article 142 powers. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 4. administrative accountability, implementation failure, and tortious liability of stakeholders. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 5. validity of standard operating procedures (sops) issued by awbi regarding stray management. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85) |
| 6. enforcement of constitutional directives through high court monitoring and compliance reporting. (Para 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
For clarity of exposition and to facilitate structured consideration of the issues arising in the present matter, this judgment has been organised under the following heads:
| INDEX | |
| I. | INTRODUCTION: |
| II. | PART I: CONSIDERATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS SEEKING MODIFICATION, CLARIFICATION, VACATION, RECALL AND/OR STAY OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED VIDE ORDER DATED 7TH NOVEMBER, 2025 |
| 1. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS SEEKING MODIFICATION, CLARIFICATION, VACATION, RECALL AND/OR STAY OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED VIDE ORDER DATED 7TH NOVEMBER, 2025: | |
| A. Alleged Conflict of the Impugned Directions with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 | |
| B. Prayer for Constitution of a Technical/Expert Committee for Comprehensive Evaluation of the Issues Involved | |
| C. Financial, Logistical, and Infrastructural Constraints in Implementation, including Expenditure towards Creation of Shelters, Deployment of Personnel, and Maintenance of Stray Animals | |
| D. Deficiencies in Implementation and Enforcement of the Animal Birth Control Framework by State and Municipal Authorities | |
| 2. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS SUPPORTING THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED VIDE ORDER DATED 7TH NOVEMBER, 2025 AND SEEKING THEIR CONTINUATION AS WELL AS EXTENSION TO OTHER PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL AREAS | |
| 3. CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES: | |
| A. Scope and Applicability of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 in Relation to Institutional and Restricted-Access Premises | |
| B. Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and Validity of the Directions Issued | |
| C. Examination of Ancillary Contentions Raised on Behalf of the Applicants | |
| D. Accountability and Tortious Liability in the Context of Stray Dog Management | |
| 4. CONCLUSION: | |
| III. | PART II: CONSIDERATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS CHALLENGING THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE ISSUED BY THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA IN COMPLIANCE OF DIRECTION (J) CONTAINED IN ORDER DATED 7TH NOVEMBER, 2025 |
| IV. | PART III: STATUS OF COMPLIANCE BY THE STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS COURT |
| ANNEXURE: COMPLIANCE REPORTING FORMAT (STATES/UTS) | |
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Court, vide its detailed and comprehensive order dated 7th November, 2025 [In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, (2026) 1 SCC 774] upon an exhaustive consideration of the compliance affidavits filed by various States and Union Territories, the summary report submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae, as well as the news reports highlighting the escalating incidents of stray animal intrusions and dog-bite cases across the country, was persuaded to supplement, modify and further elaborate upon the earlier direc
In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr.
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India
Constitutional protection of human life and safety under Article 21 takes precedence over the unhindered presence of stray animals in restricted institutional spaces. Statutory management rules do no....
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 mun....
The court affirmed the fundamental right to safety, emphasizing urgent measures against the stray dog menace, declaring existing regulations inadequate and mandating immediate action for public safet....
The court affirmed the rights of community dogs under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and mandated designated feeding zones to balance the rights of animals and residents.
Human life prevails over animal rights; authorities must enforce ABC Rules and cruelty provisions to control stray dogs, balancing public safety with humane treatment, while establishing interim comp....
Compliance with Supreme Court directions on animal welfare during stray dog removal must ensure humane treatment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of rights inherent in animals and the obligations of humans to protect those rights, invoking the doctrine of parens patriae to ....
The duty of local self-government authorities to monitor stray dogs, the necessity of obtaining a license to keep dogs, and the importance of imposing stringent conditions in tune with the relevant r....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.