Court says stray dogs cannot claim a right to remain in sensitive institutional premises; reiterates public safety obligations under Article 21
The Supreme Court has affirmed its earlier directions on the removal of stray dogs from sensitive institutional premises.
The Court held that stray dogs cannot claim a right to be re-released into places such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots and railway stations under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
Justice Mehta delivered the judgment in In Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025.
The Court also dealt with connected matters, including SLP(C) No. 14763 of 2024 and other transferred and writ petitions.
The Court considered several interlocutory applications seeking modification, clarification, recall, vacation or stay of its earlier directions issued on November 7, 2025.
Those directions dealt with stray animal management and dog-bite incidents in public and institutional spaces across India.
Background Of The Proceedings
The case arose from concerns over rising incidents of stray animal intrusions and dog-bite cases across the country.
The Court took note of repeated attacks on children, patients, sportspersons and commuters.
It found that such incidents showed “systemic administrative lapses”. The Court also observed that they affected the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In its November 7, 2025 order, the Court directed States, Union Territories, municipal bodies and institutional authorities to take preventive steps.
It directed them to identify institutional areas and secure such premises through fencing and other measures.
The Court also directed authorities to appoint nodal officers and conduct regular inspections.
It further ordered the removal of stray dogs from such premises after sterilisation and vaccination under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
The Court made it clear that authorities should not release such dogs back into the same institutional premises.
Animal Welfare Groups Challenge Non-Release Directions
Animal welfare organisations and intervenors challenged the earlier directions.
Senior counsel and other lawyers appearing for them argued that the directions went against the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
They also relied on the Revised Animal Birth Control Module issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India.
The applicants placed strong reliance on Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023.
That rule provides that authorities must release sterilised and vaccinated dogs back into the same locality from where they were captured.
The applicants argued that this requirement forms a core part of the statutory framework.
They submitted that permanent relocation would violate the legal regime governing stray dog management.
They also warned about a possible “vacuum effect”.
According to them, removal of stray dogs from one area may allow unsterilised and unvaccinated dogs to enter that space.
They argued that this could increase territorial conflicts, dog bites and rabies risks.
The applicants also relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 37.
They submitted that the Court cannot use its powers under Article 142 in a manner contrary to substantive statutory provisions.
Several applicants also sought the formation of an expert committee.
They suggested that the committee should include representatives from ministries, municipal authorities, veterinary experts, public health professionals and animal welfare organisations.
Parties Supporting Directions Cite Public Safety
Other applicants supported the Court’s November 7 directions.
They argued that the existing Animal Birth Control framework had failed to control the growing stray dog population.
They also raised concerns over public safety.
Counsel submitted that India continues to report alarming numbers of dog-bite incidents and rabies-related deaths.
They argued that free-roaming stray dogs pose serious risks to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities and economically weaker sections.
They further submitted that citizens have a right to safe and accessible public spaces under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The supporting applicants also referred to Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules, 2023.
They argued that the rule classifies “street dogs” or “community owned dogs”, but does not give stray dogs an enforceable right to remain inside sensitive institutional premises.
Supreme Court Examines ABC Rules, 2023
The Court considered the rival submissions and framed the main issue.
It examined whether stray dogs found inside schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations can qualify as “street dogs” or “community dogs” under Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules, 2023.
The Court also considered whether such dogs can claim re-release protection under Rule 11(19).
The Court examined Rule 7(2) and Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023.
It also considered Section 2(i) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Section 2(i) defines “street” as public spaces such as roads, lanes, passages and open areas accessible to the public.
The Court rejected the challenge to its earlier directions.
It held that the statutory framework does not support an absolute right of stray dogs to occupy all types of premises.
The Court said stray dogs cannot claim an “indefeasible or absolute right” to remain in every space, irrespective of its nature or use.
The Court also held that Rule 7(2) only classifies certain dogs.
It does not create enforceable rights in favour of stray dogs to occupy sensitive premises indefinitely.
Institutional Premises Cannot Be Treated As Streets
The Court held that Rule 7(2)’s reference to a “gated campus” cannot include sensitive institutional premises.
It said the phrase cannot cover hospitals, schools, colleges, sports complexes and airports.
The Court noted that such spaces require sterile, secure and obstruction-free environments.
It highlighted the presence of children, patients, elderly persons and other vulnerable groups in these places.
The Court also interpreted Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023.
It held that the expression “same place or locality” must apply only to public streets and similar open-access areas.
The Court said this expression cannot extend to private premises or controlled-access institutional spaces.
Court Upholds Earlier Directions
The Supreme Court reiterated and affirmed its November 7, 2025 directions.
It held that authorities need not re-release stray dogs into institutional premises under Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023.
The Court said educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, airports, bus depots, inter-State bus terminals and railway stations cannot receive the same treatment as public streets.
It held that stray dogs cannot claim re-release protection in such spaces.
The Court further observed that its interpretation supports the statutory scheme.
It also said the interpretation advances the constitutional duty of authorities to ensure public safety.
The Court added that authorities must maintain safe and hazard-free institutional environments under Article 21 of the Constitution.
