Supreme Court Overhauls Stray Animal Management, Citing Article 21 to Mandate Removal from Public Spaces and Highways

NEW DELHI – In a landmark order with far-reaching administrative and legal implications, the Supreme Court of India has mandated the immediate and complete removal of all stray animals from highways, expressways, and sensitive public institutions across the country. Invoking its extraordinary powers and citing the fundamental right to life under Article 21, a three-judge bench has established a new, stringent framework for managing the "grave menace" of stray animal encounters, placing direct accountability on senior state and central government officials.

The directives, issued by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria in the suo motu case IN RE : 'CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE' , SMW(C) No. 5/2025, signal a significant judicial pivot from public health management to a matter of fundamental rights enforcement. The Court has directed all states, Union Territories, and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to clear stray animals, including dogs and cattle, from public thoroughfares and institutional premises, relocating them to designated shelters.

The Court's order is two-pronged, addressing both the "alarming rise" in dog bite incidents in public spaces and the frequent, often fatal, accidents caused by stray cattle on highways.

A Decisive Shift from the 'Capture-Release' Model in Institutional Areas

The most legally significant aspect of the order is the directive concerning stray dogs found in educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots, and railway stations. The bench ordered that any stray dog found within these premises must be removed by municipal authorities and relocated to a shelter after sterilisation and vaccination.

Crucially, the Court explicitly prohibited the release of these animals back into the same location from which they were captured. The bench reasoned, "We have consciously directed the non-release of such stray dogs to the same location from which they were picked up, as permitting the same would frustrate the very effect of the directions issued to liberate such institutional areas from the presence of stray dogs."

This directive marks a notable departure from the Capture-Sterilize-Vaccinate-Release (CSVR) model enshrined in the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The ABC Rules, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, generally mandate that sterilised and vaccinated dogs be returned to their original territories. The Court's order, while not overturning the rules wholesale, carves out a significant exception for these specified institutional areas, prioritising human safety within these zones. This move is likely to be scrutinised and potentially challenged by animal welfare organisations who advocate for the territorial nature of stray dogs and the effectiveness of the CSVR model in population control.

Article 21 as the Bedrock for Judicial Intervention

The bench firmly anchored its intervention in constitutional law, framing the issue not merely as an administrative lapse but as a violation of fundamental rights. The Court observed that the "recurrence of such incidents... reflects not only administrative apathy but also a systemic failure to secure these premises from preventable hazards."

In a powerful declaration, the bench stated, "The situation calls for immediate judicial intervention to safeguard the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens, especially children, patients, and sportspersons, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

By doing so, the Supreme Court has elevated the problem from a matter of municipal governance to one of constitutional obligation. The Court noted that despite India's public health advances, it continues to report one of the world's highest rates of rabies-related mortality, primarily from dog bites. It described the current state of affairs as a "matter of grave and continuing public concern."

A New Accountability Framework for Highways

Partially affirming an earlier Rajasthan High Court order, the Supreme Court also issued a comprehensive set of directions to eliminate the presence of stray cattle and other animals on national and state highways. The Court has mandated a "joint coordinated drive" by municipal authorities, public works departments, and the NHAI to identify problem areas and ensure the removal and relocation of animals to shelters or gaushalas .

To ensure compliance, the order mandates the establishment of: * Dedicated 24/7 Highway Patrol Teams: These teams are to be tasked with continuous surveillance and immediate response. * Prominently Displayed Helpline Numbers: Commuters must be able to report the presence of stray animals, with calls linked to multi-agency control rooms for real-time action.

Significantly, the Court has created a direct chain of command for accountability. The bench directed that "Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs, together with Chairperson of NHAI, shall ensure strict enforcement of the directions through field-level monitoring and shall hold field-level officers personally accountable for lapses or recurring incidents in their respective jurisdictions."

Compliance and Future Proceedings

The Court has set a strict timeline for implementation. All states, UTs, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, and the NHAI must file detailed compliance affidavits within eight weeks. These affidavits must outline the mechanisms established for animal removal, the functioning of patrol teams, and the operational status of helpline facilities.

The bench has made it clear that non-compliance will not be tolerated, having previously summoned Chief Secretaries for failing to file affidavits on the implementation of ABC rules. The matter is scheduled for a further hearing on January 13, 2026, when the Court will review the compliance reports.

This sweeping order represents one of the most assertive judicial interventions in public safety and animal management in recent history. It creates immense operational challenges for state and local bodies, which must now rapidly scale up infrastructure for animal shelters, veterinary care, and highway patrols. For legal practitioners, the order opens new avenues for litigation concerning the scope of Article 21, the balance between animal welfare laws and public safety, and the extent of judicial oversight in matters of executive governance.