New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday revised its earlier directions on the management of stray dogs, striking a balance between public safety and animal welfare. A three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath ruled that all stray dogs picked up by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and other civic bodies must be sterilised, immunised, and then released back into the same locality. The exception applies to dogs infected with rabies or those displaying aggressive behaviour, which will be kept in shelters.

The verdict came in the suo motu case titled “In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”. The court also expanded the scope of the case to a pan-India level, directing that all similar matters pending in various high courts be transferred to the Supreme Court for consideration under a future national stray dog policy.

Key modifications by the court

The ruling replaces the contentious August 11 order of a two-judge bench, which had directed the relocation of all stray dogs in Delhi and NCR to shelters. Following widespread protests from animal welfare groups, Chief Justice B R Gavai reassigned the matter to the larger bench headed by Justice Nath.

The bench, which also included Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, issued several new directions:

  • Release after sterilisation and vaccination: Stray dogs will be released back into the locality once sterilised and immunised.
  • Exception for rabid or aggressive dogs: Dogs suffering from rabies or showing aggressive tendencies will be housed separately in shelters.
  • Ban on public feeding: Feeding of stray dogs in public spaces is prohibited to avoid nuisance and conflict.
  • Dedicated feeding zones: MCD must establish designated feeding areas for strays in every municipal ward.
  • Adoption mechanism: Animal lovers may apply to adopt stray dogs through the MCD, under conditions monitored by the Animal Welfare Board of India.

Towards a national policy

The Supreme Court issued notices to the Animal Husbandry Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, seeking their inputs for a comprehensive nationwide policy on stray dog management. This policy is expected to streamline practices across India and address inconsistencies between state-level rules and the central Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.

The order also centralises all stray dog-related petitions pending before high courts, bringing them under the Supreme Court’s purview for a uniform framework.

Background and controversy

The issue escalated after the August 11 order of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which had directed civic authorities in Delhi, Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad to relocate all stray dogs to shelters within eight weeks. The decision triggered nationwide outrage from animal welfare organisations, who argued that such mass relocation was unlawful under the ABC Rules, impractical to implement, and would lead to cruelty.

On August 14, the three-judge bench had reserved its order after sharply criticising local bodies for failing to implement sterilisation and vaccination programmes, despite having framed laws to do so. The court noted that both human safety and animal welfare were being compromised due to poor enforcement.

Balancing public safety and animal rights

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government, cited several incidents of serious dog bites, including fatalities, and stressed the need for immediate intervention to protect the public. Animal rights advocates, led by senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Sidharth Luthra, countered that the ABC Rules already provided a humane and workable framework that required proper implementation, not relocation drives.

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling aims to strike a middle path — ensuring sterilisation and vaccination to control the stray dog population while also protecting citizens from rabid or violent animals.

Public response

The judgment has been welcomed by animal welfare groups, who had gathered at Jantar Mantar ahead of the verdict, demanding the reversal of the earlier relocation order. At the same time, residents’ groups have expressed cautious optimism, stressing the importance of timely sterilisation drives and enforcement to prevent attacks.

Conclusion

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has set the stage for a national stray dog management policy that balances compassion with safety. By centralising all stray dog matters and insisting on sterilisation, immunisation, and designated feeding zones, the court has placed responsibility squarely on civic authorities while also upholding animal rights. The coming months will determine how effectively municipal bodies implement the directions across the country.