Case Name: IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE” v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Petition No.: Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 5 OF 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 506
Date of Judgement: 19th May 2026
Coram: Honourable Mr Justice Vikram Nath, Honourable Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta & Honourable Mr Justice NV Anjaria
Relevant Provisions: Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 142 of the Constitution of India; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023; Rule 7(2); Rule 11(19); Section 2(i) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court, in the present suo motu writ petition, has dealt with the crisis arising from stray dog attacks and uncontrolled stray animal presence in institutional and public spaces. The matter originated from media reports and increasing incidents involving attacks by stray dogs on children, patients, students, commuters and other vulnerable persons in schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots and railway stations. The Court treated the issue not merely as an administrative concern but as a constitutional issue implicating the fundamental right to life and safety under Article 21.

The judgment attempts to reconcile two competing constitutional and statutory concerns: the humane treatment of animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (ABC Rules), on the one hand, and the protection of human life, safety, health, and access to public spaces on the other. The Court was specifically called upon to decide whether stray dogs removed from institutional premises must necessarily be re-released to the same location under Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules.

FACTS
The case arose out of a suo motu cognisance taken by the Supreme Court of repeated reports of stray dog attacks across India. The Court observed that the “growing menace” was caused by multiple factors, including ineffective sterilisation programmes, improper waste management, lack of perimeter protection around institutions, absence of coordination among authorities and poor awareness regarding dog-bite prevention and treatment.

In its earlier orders dated 11th August 2025, 22nd August 2025, and 7th November 2025, the Court mandated the identification of institutional premises, the creation of secure boundaries, the appointment of nodal officers, regular inspections, and the immediate removal of stray dogs from such premises. Further, the Court directed that stray dogs removed from institutional areas were not to be re-released into the same locations after sterilisation and vaccination.

Following these directions, numerous interlocutory applications were filed before the Court, seeking modifications, clarifications, recalls or stays of the earlier directions. On the other hand, several applicants supported the Court’s directions and sought their extension to residential societies and parks. The Supreme Court therefore undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework, constitutional obligations and on-ground realities concerning stray dog management.

ISSUES
1. Whether the directions issued by the Supreme Court prohibiting the re-release of stray dogs into institutional premises were contrary to Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules? 

2. Whether institutional premises such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, railway stations and bus depots fall within the meaning of “same place or locality” under Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules?
3. Whether the Supreme Court could issue such directions under Article 142 of the Constitution without violating statutory provisions? 
4. Whether the ABC Rules had failed due to inherent defects or merely due to poor implementation? 
5. Whether municipal authorities and State authorities could be held accountable for injuries caused by stray dog management failures?
   
   ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
   The applicants challenging the directions argued that the Court’s earlier order was inconsistent with the ABC Rules. They submitted that Rule 11(19) explicitly mandates that sterilised and vaccinated dogs must be released back into the same locality from which they were captured.

They contended that the re-release mechanism formed the core of the statutory Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release (CSVR) model, which is globally recognised as the most scientific and humane mechanism for controlling stray dog populations. According to them, permanently removing dogs from an area creates a “vacuum effect”, leading to the migration of unsterilised dogs into the same territory and increasing aggression, dog bites, and the risk of rabies.

The applicants further argued that the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 cannot override substantive statutory provisions. Reliance was placed on Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner 1962 SCC OnLine SC 37, wherein it was held that the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to make an order which is inconsistent with or in direct contravention of statutory provisions or substantive law, much less in violation of constitutional limitations.

The applicants also contended that the real problem lay not in the ABC Rules themselves but in their poor implementation by municipal bodies. They argued that effective sterilisation, vaccination and sanitation measures would adequately solve the problem. Additionally, some applicants sought the constitution of an expert committee comprising veterinary experts, municipal authorities, public health specialists, and animal welfare organisations to devise a long-term, scientifically informed framework.

On the other hand, the applicants supporting the Supreme Court’s earlier directions argued that the stray dog crisis had reached catastrophic proportions and posed a grave threat to public safety and public health. They submitted that despite the ABC Rules being in force since 2001, the stray dog population had drastically increased across India, and India continued to witness one of the highest numbers of dog-bite incidents and rabies deaths globally. It was argued that the unrestricted presence of stray dogs in public and institutional spaces violated citizens’ fundamental rights under Article 21, including the right to safe mobility, hygienic surroundings and secure public spaces.

The supporting applicants further contended that Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules merely classifies stray dogs and does not create an enforceable right for dogs to permanently occupy spaces. They argued that the expression “same locality” under Rule 11(19) must be interpreted in light of Section 2(i) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which defines “street” as publicly accessible areas. Finally, they urged the Court to expand the directions to residential societies, parks and other public spaces.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court undertook an extensive constitutional and statutory analysis of the stray dog management framework in India, while adjudicating upon the first issue: the validity of its earlier directions dated 7th November 2025. The Court observed that the increasing incidents of dog attacks, particularly upon children, elderly persons, patients and commuters, required a careful balancing of competing constitutional values. The Bench noted that the issue had assumed “grave human, societal and public health consequences” and therefore necessitated judicial intervention to ensure that the State discharged its obligations under Article 21.

The Court framed the central issue around the interpretation of Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, which mandates that sterilised and vaccinated dogs must be released back to the “same place or locality” from where they were captured. The Court examined whether institutional premises such as schools, hospitals, colleges, sports complexes, airports, railway stations and bus depots could legally fall within the meaning of “same place or locality”.

In undertaking this analysis, the Court first examined the scheme of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the ABC Rules. The Bench noted that Rule 7(2) classifies “street dogs” or “community dogs” as dogs living on streets or within gated campuses. However, the Court clarified that Rule 7(2) is merely a classificatory provision intended to identify categories of animals for regulatory purposes. According to the Court, such a provision cannot be interpreted as conferring a substantive or enforceable right upon stray dogs to continue occupying the location in which they may be found. The Court rejected the submission that stray dogs possess a right to inhabit institutional spaces. It observed that the ABC Rules are regulatory in nature and intended to facilitate population control, sterilisation, and vaccination, rather than to create perpetual occupancy rights in favour of stray animals.

The Court then harmoniously interpreted Rule 11(19) with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Particular emphasis was placed upon Section 2(i) of the Act, which defines the expression “street” to include roads, lanes, passages and public spaces to which the public has access. The Court reasoned that subordinate legislation framed under the parent statute must necessarily operate within the contours of the enabling legislation. Consequently, the expression “same place or locality” occurring in Rule 11(19) could not be interpreted in an unrestricted or expansive manner so as to include highly sensitive institutional premises. The Court held that such an interpretation would travel beyond the legislative intent underlying the parent enactment.

Addressing the second issue, the Bench observed that institutional premises, such as hospitals, schools, sports complexes, and transport hubs, perform specialised public functions and are expected to maintain safe, hygienic, and obstruction-free environments. These places are routinely accessed by vulnerable sections of society, including children, patients, elderly persons and persons with disabilities, all of whom are inherently more susceptible to risks arising from stray animal presence. The Court noted that permitting stray dogs to roam freely in such spaces would create risks of attacks, the spread of disease, obstruction of movement, and disturbance of public order. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the phrase “gated campus” appearing in Rule 7(2) must be interpreted contextually and cannot be extended to sensitive institutional establishments.

While addressing the constitutional dimensions of the matter, the Court held at Paragraph 99, “The right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack or exposure to life-threatening events such as dog bites in public areas. The State cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate in the face of statutory mechanisms specifically designed to address them.” 

Regarding the third issue, the Court also examined the limitations upon its powers under Article 142 in light of the submissions advanced by the applicants. The challengers had relied on Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner 1962 SCC OnLine SC 37 to argue that Article 142 cannot be exercised in contravention of substantive statutory provisions. The Bench acknowledged this settled proposition but held that its earlier directions did not override the statute. Instead, the directions merely reflected a harmonious and purposive interpretation of the existing statutory framework. The Court stressed that Article 142 was being exercised not to supplant the law but to operationalise constitutional guarantees and ensure effective enforcement consistent with legislative intent.

With respect to the fourth issue, the Court turned towards the practical failures of the ABC Rules. It acknowledged the submissions made by animal welfare organisations that the continued stray dog problem was largely attributable to the deficient implementation of sterilisation and vaccination programmes. The Court accepted that many municipal bodies had failed to properly implement the CSVR model contemplated under the ABC Rules. However, such implementation failures cannot justify continued endangerment of public safety. The Court observed that institutional premises, such as schools, hospitals, and transport hubs, must be maintained in controlled, secure, and hazard-free environments, and that authorities cannot be prevented from discharging their constitutional obligation to ensure safety and order in such spaces. 

The Bench also analysed the enormous financial and logistical concerns raised by the applicants in implementing sheltering systems for stray dogs. While the Court recognised the practical challenges involved, it refused to permit financial incapacity to serve as a constitutional defence to administrative inaction. The Court observed that public authorities are constitutionally obligated to devise workable mechanisms for balancing animal welfare with human safety.

Another important dimension of the judgment concerned accountability and tortious liability. For the sixth issue, the Court strongly observed that any continued non-compliance or apathy in the implementation of the directions issued by the Courts shall be viewed seriously, and the erring officials of the municipal authorities and the concerned departments of the States and Union Territories shall render themselves liable for appropriate proceedings, including proceedings for contempt of Court, disciplinary proceedings and tortious liability. States and Union Territories are under a continuing and untrammelled constitutional obligation to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to life and the safety of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This obligation is not merely passive in nature but casts an affirmative duty upon the States and Union Territories to take all necessary and effective measures to prevent conditions that pose a threat to public safety, health and well-being. 

Additionally, at Paragraph 108, the court issued certain directions as follows: 

1. States/UTs must urgently strengthen and expand infrastructure to effectively implement the ABC Rules.
2. Every district must establish at least one fully functional ABC Centre with proper veterinary facilities, trained staff, and monitoring mechanisms, with additional centres where required.
3. States/UTs must strictly and promptly implement the Court’s directions and comply with AWBI Standard Operating Procedures.
4. Authorities must consider extending these directions to other high-footfall public spaces after assessing public safety risks and ground realities.
5. States/UTs must undertake capacity-building measures, including staff training, improved veterinary services, vaccination drives, and the provision of shelter facilities.
6. Government medical facilities must ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin, along with effective dog-bite response systems.
7. NHAI, in coordination with States/UTs, must establish a coordinated mechanism to remove and relocate stray cattle and other animals from highways and expressways.
8. In areas with severe stray dog threats, authorities may take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia of rabid, incurably ill, or dangerous dogs, strictly as per law and veterinary assessment.
9. Officials implementing the Court’s directions in good faith shall be protected from frivolous FIRs, complaints, or coercive proceedings, unless mala fides or abuse of authority is shown.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reaffirmed and upheld its earlier directions dated 7th November 2025. The Court conclusively held that stray dogs found within educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, airports, railway stations, bus depots and similar restricted-access spaces cannot be compulsorily re-released into those very premises after sterilisation and vaccination. The Bench clarified that such premises fall outside the statutory contemplation of “same place or locality” under Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules.

CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment that balanced animal welfare concerns with the constitutional imperatives of public safety and health. The Court affirmed that humane treatment of animals remains important under Indian law, but such considerations cannot override the State’s obligation to protect human life and safety under Article 21. This case is monumental as it further expands the ambit of Article 21 to include the right to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack or exposure to life-threatening events.