The Supreme Court on Monday indicated that it will soon issue directions to regulate the feeding of stray dogs within the premises of government buildings, marking another significant step in the ongoing litigation over the management of the country’s growing stray dog population.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria observed that certain employees in government institutions have been supporting and encouraging dogs on official premises, leading to complaints and safety concerns.
“We will issue an order in a few days regarding government institutions, where employees are supporting and encouraging dogs in that area,” Justice Vikram Nath said, adding that the order would be uploaded shortly.
The observation came during the hearing of a series of petitions concerning the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, and the management of stray dog populations across States and Union Territories.
During the hearing, Senior advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for an intervenor, requested that those feeding or caring for strays be heard before any such direction is passed, but the bench refused to pass a judgement on the matter today.
Nundy also submitted that the designated feeding areas created by Delhi’s municipal authorities were flawed and poorly demarcated, arguing that they failed to balance compassion for animals with public safety.
Stray dog relocation policies may significantly undermine herd immunity against rabies, potentially leading to increased public health risks from dog bites and disease outbreaks. #InternationalDogDay https://t.co/mp4bcv3Gvg
— THE WEEK (@TheWeekLive) August 26, 2025
The court, however, deferred that issue for consideration on the next date of hearing, noting that it would examine how local bodies had implemented the feeding area guidelines.
The case has become a flashpoint between two sets of stakeholders: animal rights advocates and victims of dog bites, with both sides invoking fundamental rights and competing claims of compassion and safety.
Chief Secretaries warned over non-compliance
The hearing also saw the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories appear before the bench, following the Court’s earlier direction summoning them for failing to file affidavits detailing compliance with the ABC Rules.
The bench took note that all States and UTs had since filed their compliance affidavits. It, therefore, dispensed with their personal presence for future hearings, but issued a stern warning.
“If there is any default in future, we will order personal presence again,” the bench cautioned.
The Court’s insistence on State accountability is reflected in its concern over inconsistent implementation of sterilisation and vaccination programmes—the core mechanisms under the ABC framework to control the stray dog population humanely.
Victims of dog bites allowed to intervene
In another key direction, the Supreme Court allowed the intervention applications filed by victims of dog bites, permitting them to participate in the proceedings without depositing any money.
ALSO READ | Stray dogs and the Supreme Court: Balancing safety, welfare, and governance
Earlier, in its August 22 order, the Court had directed individuals and NGOs representing dog lovers to deposit Rs 25,000 and Rs 2 lakh respectively with the registry, before being allowed to intervene in the suo motu matter.
Recognising the public nature of the issue and the hardships faced by victims, the bench exempted them from such deposit requirements.
At the same time, the Court also impleaded the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) as a respondent in the case, expanding the scope of responsibility for ensuring adherence to statutory animal welfare norms.
Senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal will continue as amicus curiae, assisting the court in coordinating compliance, monitoring sterilisation drives, and advising on humane feeding practices.
Balancing compassion with public safety
The stray dogs case, which began as a suo motu exercise to enforce humane animal birth control mechanisms, has now evolved into a broader debate about balancing compassion with community safety.
The court’s directions are expected to clarify the scope of permissible feeding areas, the responsibility of caretakers, and the role of local bodies in enforcing ABC Rules.
The next hearing on November 7 will likely examine the functioning of designated feeding zones and whether municipal authorities have adhered to the humane and practical balance envisioned under the rules. |
