Euthanise rabid dogs, remove strays from school and hospitals: Decoding the Supreme Court verdict

The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions against its November order directing authorities to remove stray dogs from public places including hospitals, schools, railway stations and bus stands.

The apex court said that growing attacks from stray dogs threaten public health. It added that it cannot remain a ‘passive spectator’ to the crisis. The court also allowed authorities to euthanise rabid and aggressive stray dogs.

The bench was hearing a clutch of petitions urging the court to modify its November 7, 2025 order. The bench in January reserved its verdict while hearing pleas from state governments, civic bodies, animal rights groups, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).

More from Explainers

Can Delhi follow the Netherlands’ example to end its stray dog crisis?

How much will it cost to house Delhi’s nearly 10 lakh stray dogs?

But what happened? Why did the court refuse to amend its order?

Let’s take a closer look

What happened?

The apex court bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, as per NDTV.

The bench called the incidents involving stray dogs biting children, the elderly and foreigners ‘alarming’. “Authorities may, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control rules and other applicable statutory protocols, take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia in cases involving incurably ill, rabid or demonstrably dangerous/aggressive dogs to effectively curb the threat posed to human life and safety,” the Supreme Court order read.

“We have given detailed consideration to applications seeking recall of our November 7 judgement,” the bench said, “(but) we dismiss all the applications.”

As per News18, the court also passed a slew of orders for states and Union Territories on the stricter implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules.

The rules, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, mandate that local bodies control stray dog populations via sterilisation and anti-rabies vaccination.

The court directed:

Why did court refuse to amend its order?

The court said that the right to life includes living freely without threat from dog attacks. It added that the Constitution cannot imagine a society where children and the elderly survive at the mercy of ‘physical strength or chance’.

“Right to life with dignity encompasses the right to live freely without threat of harm from a dog bite attack. The state cannot remain a passive spectator. The court cannot remain oblivious to harsh ground realities where children, international travellers, and elderly people have fallen victim to dog bite incidents. The Constitution doesn’t envisage a society where children and elderly people are to survive at the mercy of physical strength,” Justice Sandeep Mehta was quoted as saying by Live Law.

also passed a slew of orders for states and Union Territories on the stricter implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules. PTI

“The menace of dog bites has extended to public places of critical importance, including airports and residential areas,” the bench added.

As per News18, the apex court bench slammed authorities for their inaction.

It criticised the “discernible absence of efforts to expand and quantify infrastructure in proportion to the increasing population of stray dogs” and slammed them for undertaking sterilisation and vaccination drives without proper planning.

“It defeats the object of the framework. Had states acted with due foresight, the present situation would not have assumed such alarming proportions,” the court said. It added that the “inaction on effective implementation of the ABC framework” had exacerbated the already increasing stray dog menace.

“Prolonged inaction and absence of institutional commitment to effective implementation of the ABC framework has contributed significantly to the persistence as well as aggravation of the problem, which has now assumed dimensions warranting urgent and systemic intervention,” the bench stated.

As per The Wire, the court said the issue had reached a ‘staggering dimension’ and that the “continued recurrence of such incidents” pointed to a serious failure in implementing the ABC rules. The bench also directed authorities, including the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), to ensure stray animals and cattle were removed from highways and expressways.

The timeline of the orders

The court in January 2026 had reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking modification of the November 7 order of the top court on relocation and sterilisation of stray dogs, and expressed its unhappiness over the efforts of Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in complying with its directions.

It said that roads and public spaces “have to be clear and clean of dogs” and added that one “can’t read a dog’s mind when he is in a mood to bite”, while hearing pleas seeking modification of its earlier orders.

As per NDTV, the court in its landmark decision in November 2025 had ordered authorities to round up stray dogs from public places such as hospitals, parks and railway stations and place them in shelters. The court further added that, after being sterilised, they should not be returned to the original areas. It also banned public feeding of stray dogs except in certain designated areas.

The bench called the incidents involving stray dogs biting children, the elderly and foreigners ‘alarming’. File image/AP

The court had also directed authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from state highways, national highways and expressways. As per NDTV, a number of animal rights activists and NGOs had filed petitions seeking that the court amend its orders.

As per Business Standard, the two-judge bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in August 2025 had instructed authorities not to release stray dogs that had been vaccinated back into public spaces. This was later referred to a three-judge bench, which allowed sterilised and vaccinated dogs to be released back into localities.

The bench said a blanket order to keep all stray dogs in shelters was “unworkable”. However, it ruled that authorities must keep aggressive and rabid dogs in shelters. The court had also ordered authorities to set up dedicated feeding zones for stray dogs.

The court in July 2025 had taken suo motu cognisance of rising dog bite incidents and rabies cases. This came after media reports about increasing incidents of rabies among children as a result of being bitten by stray dogs. It had ordered that all stray dogs in Delhi and adjoining regions be shifted to shelters. The court had ordered authorities to employ professionals to sterilise, immunise, and take care of the dogs. The court had warned against any individuals or organisations trying to thwart authorities acting on its orders, saying that they would face the “strictest action”.

FAQs

1. What did the Supreme Court order regarding stray dogs?

The Supreme Court directed authorities to remove stray dogs from public places such as hospitals, schools and transport hubs, and allowed euthanasia of rabid or aggressive dogs.

2. Why did the court refuse to modify its earlier order?

The court held that public safety and the right to life outweigh concerns, noting that rising dog attacks pose a serious threat, especially to children and the elderly.

3. What are Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules?

ABC rules require local bodies to manage stray dog populations through sterilisation and anti-rabies vaccinations.

With inputs from agencies