SC Warns Strictures Over Vague Stray Dog Affidavits

In a stern rebuke during ongoing proceedings on India's stray dogs crisis, the Supreme Court of India has warned states and Union Territories of "strong strictures" for submitting "vague" and misleading affidavits on compliance with directives to manage stray populations. A bench led by Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria expressed frustration over the lack of specific data on dog removals, sterilization efforts, and bite incidents, while highlighting the broader ramifications for public health, tourism, and institutional safety. The case, which originated from alarming reports of child rabies deaths in Delhi, underscores a critical tension between animal welfare mandates and the imperative to safeguard human lives, setting the stage for potential judicial interventions that could reshape nationwide animal control policies.

Background of the Suo Motu Proceedings

The Supreme Court's involvement in the stray dogs issue began as a suo motu writ petition on July 28, 2025, triggered by a media report detailing a surge in stray dog attacks leading to rabies cases, particularly among children in the national capital. Titled In Re: 'City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price' (SMW(C) No. 5/2025), the case quickly expanded beyond Delhi to encompass all states and Union Territories, addressing the pervasive problem of stray dogs—estimated at over 5.2 crore nationwide—roaming public spaces, highways, beaches, and institutions.

Early orders focused on immediate action in high-risk areas. On August 11, 2025, the Court directed the State of NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to capture all stray dogs from localities and public places and relocate them to shelter homes, prohibiting their release under any circumstances. This directive aimed to curb the "alarming rise" in dog bites within sensitive zones like educational institutions, hospitals, and railway stations. However, recognizing the need for a balanced approach, the bench partially modified this on August 22, 2025, mandating that captured dogs be sterilized, vaccinated against rabies, and—unless rabid or aggressive—released back to their original areas to avoid the "vacuum effect," where new, potentially more aggressive strays fill vacated territories.

By November 7, 2025, the Court escalated its focus on institutional premises, ordering the forthwith relocation of stray canines from schools, hospitals, and similar sites after sterilization and vaccination. The proceedings also touched on ancillary issues, such as the harassment of dog feeders by vigilantes, which the Court on January 9, 2026, deemed a law-and-order matter for FIRs rather than direct intervention. Earlier, on January 20, 2026, the bench expressed displeasure over former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi's public criticism of its orders, terming it potential contempt of court.

At the heart of the litigation lies the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2023 (ABC Rules), notified under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960. These rules prescribe humane methods—sterilization, vaccination, and relocation—for controlling stray populations, explicitly rejecting mass culling as cruel and ineffective. Yet, implementation has been patchy, with only 76 accredited ABC centers nationwide struggling to handle the scale. The case has evolved into a nationwide audit of state efforts, with Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal playing a pivotal role in compiling data and urging comprehensive compliance.

Latest Hearing: Scrutiny of State Compliance

The most recent hearing, held on a date in early 2026 (with proceedings listed as part-heard for the following day at 2 PM), saw the bench delve into affidavits from over a dozen states and UTs, including Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir. Amicus Aggarwal presented a detailed note organized around four pillars: operational status of ABC centers, dog shelter establishment, removal of strays from institutional premises, and mitigation of cattle/dog ingress on highways.

The bench's impatience was palpable, with Justice Nath warning that "states cannot make vague statements" and threatening "strong strictures" against governments for "total eye wash" submissions lacking specifics on dog removals, bite incidents, or infrastructure. Justice Mehta echoed this, remarking on Haryana's affidavit: "There was no mention of steps taken to remove stray dogs from institutions." For West Bengal, he deemed it "as vague as it can be," noting the absence of data on dog pound capacity.

State-wise highlights revealed stark disparities. Assam drew shock for its "astonishing" dog bite statistics—1,00,066 incidents in 2024 and 20,900 in January 2025 alone—with Justice Mehta expressing dismay at the state's silence on manpower for ABC centers. The state, with only one functional center in Dibrugarh despite three municipal corporations, sought six months to build infrastructure but offered no detailed plan. In Jharkhand, claims of vaccinating and sterilizing over 1 lakh dogs were dismissed as "practically impossible" and "absolutely fudged-up figures" by Justice Mehta, who questioned the logistics: "One caged vehicle can catch how many dogs in a day?"

Karnataka provided some specifics via its "Rajmagra Yatra App" for reporting strays, identifying dogs in institutions but failing to remove them, with only 91 housed in pounds—a "negligible figure" per the bench. Gujarat reported progress with Rs. 60 crore budgeted for new pounds this year and Rs. 75 crore next, but the Court emphasized that "large, permanent infrastructure is not required," advocating "good places" for care instead. Maharashtra stood out positively with an upcoming online dashboard for real-time data on bites, sterilizations, and ABC centers, a model the bench suggested others emulate.

Tourism emerged as a flashpoint, with the Court noting attacks on beaches in Goa and Kerala. "That (stray dog problem) affects tourism also," Justice Mehta observed, agreeing with the Amicus that strays captured from beaches "cannot be released back there" due to scavenging on fish carcasses. The bench deprecated vague institutional fencing reports, clarifying that while boundary walls aren't mandatory, "fencing may suffice" to protect both premises and public safety. Most states sought 3-6 months for further implementation, citing budgetary allocations and infrastructure development, but the Court demanded audits and timelines.

For Andhra Pradesh, with 39 ABC centers sterilizing 1,619 dogs daily, the Amicus called for utilization audits and new center timelines; 12,000 of 14,000 identified institutions had fencing. Bihar's 34 centers had sterilized only 20,648 of over 6 lakh strays—"totally insufficient," per Aggarwal—with counsel seeking three months. Madhya Pradesh admitted stalled catching due to shelter shortages, housing just 475 dogs. Odisha was praised for institutional removals, with recommendations for ABC centers in tourist spots like Puri. Delhi's efforts, via ASG SD Sanjay, included detailed affidavits, but the bench noted 68,000 sterilizations in eight months fell short of reducing populations.

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and remaining states were slated for submissions the next day, with the bench underscoring collaboration to prevent animal ingress on roads.

Key Legal Tensions: Public Safety vs. Animal Welfare

The proceedings illuminate deep legal fissures. Proponents of strict ABC adherence, like Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, argue the rules—born of decades of parliamentary deliberation—offer the only effective, humane solution, blaming "regulatory failure" and underutilized funds for the "catastrophe." She highlighted the vacuum effect, where mass removal invites worse infestations, and strays' ecological role in rodent control. Conversely, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar challenged the ABC Rules as ultra vires, conflicting with over 60 laws, and raised alarms over 50,000 feral dogs in Ladakh threatening snow leopards via diseases like canine distemper.

Justice Mehta aligned with ecological concerns, likening strays to Florida's invasive pythons and noting their "terminal" threat to wildlife. The bench has floated heavy compensation for states and feeders per bite or death, emphasizing lifelong trauma from attacks under Article 21's right to life. Yet, it rejected mass culling as "barbaric," citing distressing incidents like Telangana's 2025 killing of 900 dogs—performative cruelty with no population impact. Senior Advocate Pinky Anand advocated recognizing "individual feeders" as partners, promoting adoption of "Indie" breeds over relocation.

Logistical hurdles loom large: Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal estimated Rs. 26,800 crore needed for infrastructure, proposing 60:40 Centre-State funding. The Court, weary of arguments turning into a "public platform," has urged focus on human victims, with Justice Mehta quipping on a society's warning board: "Iss gali me kaatne wale kutte rehte hai. So you don't walk then?"

Challenges in Implementation and Humane Alternatives

Implementation remains the Achilles' heel. Sources highlight ABC Rules' success in pockets—like Lucknow's 70% sterilization rate slashing conflicts in 2024, or Sikkim and Goa's progress—but nationwide, corruption, neglect, and resource gaps prevail. The opinion piece in the sources advocates a "decade-long, district-by-district" sterilization drive, emulating Bhutan's model with NGO/volunteer involvement, free anti-rabies vaccines, and regulation of illegal breeders under the 2017 Dog Breeding Rules. Shelters are dismissed as "impractical and expensive," potentially becoming "state-sponsored euthanasia," with funds better directed to ABC.

Blame extends to pet abandonment (India's 50% relinquishment rate per 2021 Pet Homelessness Index) and over 100,000 illegal puppy mills flooding streets with traumatized dogs. The judiciary is urged to fine negligent owners/breeders and hold municipal corporations accountable for the "population explosion" from indifference.

Broader Legal Implications for Practitioners

For legal professionals, this case heralds a precedent in judicial enforcement of welfare statutes, potentially mandating nationwide ABC audits and funding mechanisms. Administrative lawyers may advise states on compliance to avert strictures, while animal rights practitioners could litigate against culls or feeder harassment. Environmentally, it advances "pragmatic compassion" as a principle, influencing conflicts from elephants to endangered species, and aligning with global norms (e.g., WHO rabies goals). Public health advocates gain leverage for rabies vaccination drives, but challenges persist: disenfranchising strays from public spaces without cruelty tests PCA's limits, possibly inviting constitutional challenges under Articles 14 and 21.

The Rs. 26,800 crore ask underscores fiscal federalism debates, with SC's 60:40 suggestion testing Centre-State dynamics. Litigation may surge in High Courts for local enforcement, boosting practice in PILs and municipal law.

Looking Ahead

With arguments continuing and NHAI pending, the Supreme Court appears poised to issue binding directions for ABC rollout, possibly including timelines and penalties. This could usher in a humane, effective framework, reducing bites and fostering coexistence—if states heed the warnings. As the bench noted, "no one has argued for human beings so compassionately," but the scales must balance: India's streets demand action that protects both vulnerable children and voiceless strays.