Supreme Court says order to remove street dogs stands, flags biting incidents
Defending its earlier direction, the Supreme Court observed that incidents involving stray dog attacks had become a serious public safety concern, particularly for children and senior citizens. The bench noted that young children had been mauled, elderly people attacked and even foreign tourists affected in several incidents reported across the country.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to modify its November 2025 order directing the removal of stray dogs from public institutions and spaces such as hospitals, schools, colleges, bus stations and railway stations, saying it could not remain “blind to harsh realities”.
Defending its earlier direction, the top court observed that incidents involving stray dog attacks had become a serious public safety concern, particularly for children and senior citizens. The bench noted that young children had been mauled, elderly people attacked, and even foreign tourists affected in several incidents reported across the country.
In its landmark November 7, 2025 order, the Supreme Court directed local authorities to remove stray dogs from institutional areas such as schools, hospitals, educational campuses, sports complexes, railway stations and bus stands. The court also warned against releasing the dogs back into these areas after vaccinating and sterilising them, directing instead that they be relocated to designated shelters.
With regard to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, the court suspended the “Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release” (CSVR) model for high-footfall areas such as schools, hospitals and transit hubs, among others.
PLEAS TO MODIFY 2025 ORDER DISMISSED
On Tuesday, the court dismissed a batch of applications seeking modification of its earlier order, reiterating its direction that stray dogs taken from public places cannot be released back and must be confined to shelters.
The bench also remarked that a “Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest” appeared to be operating on the ground, with vulnerable sections of society left to fend for themselves in the absence of effective state action.
It stressed that children and the elderly could not be left to deal with such threats alone and said governments were duty-bound to ensure the protection of life and public safety. The bench refused to recall or dilute its earlier order on shifting stray dogs from public places to shelters.
STATE CAN'T REMAIN A PUBLIC SPECTATOR: SC
Most importantly, the Supreme Court also pointed out that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 encompasses “the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical 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 mechanism specifically designed to address them," the bench further observed.
The three-judge bench slammed the state authorities for failing to perform their duty of protecting people from dog bites and attacks, observing, “The menace of dog bites has extended to critical public places, including airports and residential areas.”
Citing news reports of recent cases of dogs bites in the country, the court pointed out that the recurrence of such incidents showed there were serious gaps in the implementation of directions.
The bench further observed that the “continued recurrence of such incidents” reflected the lackadaisical approach of local authorities and their failure to effectively implement the court’s directions.
The top court warned that if there is any failure or negligence in carrying out the directions, contempt and disciplinary action would be initiated against those responsible.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to modify its November 2025 order directing the removal of stray dogs from public institutions and spaces such as hospitals, schools, colleges, bus stations and railway stations, saying it could not remain “blind to harsh realities”.
Defending its earlier direction, the top court observed that incidents involving stray dog attacks had become a serious public safety concern, particularly for children and senior citizens. The bench noted that young children had been mauled, elderly people attacked, and even foreign tourists affected in several incidents reported across the country.
In its landmark November 7, 2025 order, the Supreme Court directed local authorities to remove stray dogs from institutional areas such as schools, hospitals, educational campuses, sports complexes, railway stations and bus stands. The court also warned against releasing the dogs back into these areas after vaccinating and sterilising them, directing instead that they be relocated to designated shelters.
With regard to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, the court suspended the “Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release” (CSVR) model for high-footfall areas such as schools, hospitals and transit hubs, among others.
PLEAS TO MODIFY 2025 ORDER DISMISSED
On Tuesday, the court dismissed a batch of applications seeking modification of its earlier order, reiterating its direction that stray dogs taken from public places cannot be released back and must be confined to shelters.
The bench also remarked that a “Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest” appeared to be operating on the ground, with vulnerable sections of society left to fend for themselves in the absence of effective state action.
It stressed that children and the elderly could not be left to deal with such threats alone and said governments were duty-bound to ensure the protection of life and public safety. The bench refused to recall or dilute its earlier order on shifting stray dogs from public places to shelters.
STATE CAN'T REMAIN A PUBLIC SPECTATOR: SC
Most importantly, the Supreme Court also pointed out that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 encompasses “the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical 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 mechanism specifically designed to address them," the bench further observed.
The three-judge bench slammed the state authorities for failing to perform their duty of protecting people from dog bites and attacks, observing, “The menace of dog bites has extended to critical public places, including airports and residential areas.”
Citing news reports of recent cases of dogs bites in the country, the court pointed out that the recurrence of such incidents showed there were serious gaps in the implementation of directions.
The bench further observed that the “continued recurrence of such incidents” reflected the lackadaisical approach of local authorities and their failure to effectively implement the court’s directions.
The top court warned that if there is any failure or negligence in carrying out the directions, contempt and disciplinary action would be initiated against those responsible.
