Supreme Court to Regulate Dog Feeding in Govt Buildings Amid Pan-India Compliance Push

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India is set to issue specific directions regulating the feeding of stray dogs within the premises of government and other large institutions, a significant development in the ongoing suo motu case addressing the nationwide issue of stray dog management. The Court has also intensified its scrutiny of state governments, demanding strict adherence to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.

A three-judge bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, announced its intention to pass an interim order to address concerns about employees supporting and encouraging the presence of dogs on official premises.

"We will issue order in a few days regarding government institutions, where employees are supporting and encouraging dogs in that area," Justice Vikram Nath observed during the hearing.

The bench declined a request from Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, representing an intervenor, to be heard before the directions are passed, stating unequivocally, "With regard to govt institutions, we will not hear." This move signals the Court's intent to establish a clear, non-negotiable framework for institutional responsibility before delving further into the broader arguments presented by various stakeholders.

The Court has scheduled the matter for orders on November 7, with the legal community keenly awaiting the specific contours of these new regulations.

A Pan-India Mandate and Stern Warnings on Compliance

The hearing underscored the Supreme Court's frustration with the lax implementation of animal welfare laws by state authorities. The bench noted the personal appearance of Chief Secretaries from various States and Union Territories, who had been summoned for their failure to file affidavits detailing their compliance with the ABC Rules.

Previously, on October 27, the Court had expressed its dissatisfaction, noting that only West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had complied with its August 22 directions. Justice Nath had remarked that the Court was being forced to resolve issues that fell squarely within the domain of municipal corporations and state governments, who had shown disrespect to its orders.

After confirming that the compliance affidavits had now been filed, the bench dispensed with the personal presence of the Chief Secretaries for future hearings. However, it issued a stern caution: "their presence would again become necessary in case there is any default in compliance with orders passed by this court." This warning serves as a clear message that the Court will maintain rigorous oversight and will not tolerate further delays or non-compliance in the implementation of the statutory framework for animal birth control.

The Judicial Journey: From Local Concern to National Policy

The case, titled IN RE : 'CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE', SMW(C) No. 5/2025, originated from a suo motu cognizance taken by a two-judge bench in July based on a media report about fatal dog attacks on children in the Delhi-NCR region.

Initially, on August 11, the bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala passed a sweeping directive ordering authorities in Delhi, Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad to capture all stray dogs and relocate them to shelters permanently. The order also warned that any obstruction by individuals or organizations would face legal consequences.

This directive was met with significant public outcry and criticism from animal welfare advocates, who argued it was impractical, inhumane, and contrary to established scientific and legal principles of stray animal management. Following an urgent mention before the Chief Justice, the case was reassigned to the current three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath.

On August 22, the larger bench stayed the "too harsh" directions of the previous order. It explicitly clarified that the ABC Rules, particularly Rule 11(9), mandate that stray dogs picked up for sterilization and vaccination must be released back into the same area. The only exceptions are for dogs confirmed or suspected to be rabid or those exhibiting incurable aggression.

Crucially, the bench expanded the scope of the litigation from the Delhi-NCR region to a pan-India matter, impleading all States, Union Territories, and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) to ensure uniform implementation of the ABC Rules. The Court also indicated its intention to formulate a national policy by potentially transferring similar petitions pending in various High Courts to itself.

Balancing Competing Rights: Victims and Advocates

The Supreme Court's proceedings have become a critical forum for balancing the competing interests of public safety and animal welfare. Recognizing the plight of those affected by dog attacks, the Court allowed intervention applications filed by dog bite victims and notably exempted them from the mandatory deposit that was imposed on other intervenors.

In its August 22 order, the Court had directed individuals and NGOs "espousing the cause of dogs" to deposit Rs 25,000 and Rs 2 lakhs, respectively, to intervene. By waiving this requirement for victims, the Court has ensured their voices are heard and acknowledged the immense personal hardship they have faced.

The bench also addressed the contentious issue of public feeding, ordering in August that authorities must create dedicated feeding spaces for stray dogs. During the latest hearing, Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy raised concerns about the flawed designation of these feeding areas by Delhi's local bodies, an issue the Court has agreed to examine at the next hearing date.

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

The Supreme Court's active management of this case holds profound implications for administrative and municipal law. By summoning top-ranking bureaucrats and demanding accountability, the Court is reinforcing the principle of executive answerability in the enforcement of statutory rules. The impending directions on feeding dogs in government premises will set a new precedent for institutional liability and workplace policy concerning animals.

The role of amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Guarav Agarwal, remains pivotal in assisting the Court to navigate the complex data, coordinate compliance across states, and advise on humane practices. The impleadment of the Animal Welfare Board of India further solidifies the role of the statutory body in overseeing and ensuring adherence to animal welfare norms.

As the case progresses, it is evolving from a mere enforcement exercise into a broader deliberation on national policy. The Court's actions aim to create a sustainable and humane framework for stray dog management that harmonizes the fundamental right to a safe environment with the constitutional duty of compassion for living creatures. The forthcoming order on institutional feeding and the subsequent examination of designated feeding zones will be critical next steps in this complex and emotionally charged public interest litigation.