Jan 06, 2026 The Indian Supreme Court Acts on the Stray Dog Issue: Is it a Crisis or an Opportunity? Part 1
On July 28, 2025, the Times of India published a report titled “Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” following the tragic death of a 6-year-old girl who contracted rabies after being bitten by stray dogs. This article caught the attention of two judges from the Indian Supreme Court, who decided to issue a suo motu ruling—one initiated by the judges’ concerns rather than a petition submitted to the court.
On August 11, 2025, the two-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court released a ruling requiring local authorities in and around New Delhi to begin rounding up stray dogs from all neighborhoods. The ruling mandated that these dogs be taken to designated shelters or pounds and explicitly stated that, under no circumstances, should the stray dogs be released back onto the streets.
Animal advocates were stunned by this ruling, arguing in their subsequent submissions to the court that it violated Rule 11(19) of the 2023 Animal Birth Control (ABC) guidelines established under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960. The ABC approach in India, which aims to manage stray dog and cat populations humanely, was first proposed in the 1960s and has since gained worldwide acceptance.
The Indian Supreme Court acted swiftly to clarify its intentions, and on August 22, a three-judge bench issued a second directive regarding the stray dog issue. The judges recognized the need for a “balancing exercise” to align the August 11 order with the legal framework outlined in the ABC Rules, 2023. The Court also noted that rounding up and caring for stray dogs in and around New Delhi would be a monumental task, as there are possibly one million street dogs in the region and over 60 million homeless dogs across India. Additionally, the Court acknowledged the “scientific” and “compassionate” rationale behind Rule 11(19) of the 2023 ABC Rules, which requires that dogs be returned to their familiar environments.
The Court modified the August 11 order and temporarily suspended the “No-release” requirement. However, the Court reaffirmed that aggressive dogs and dogs infected with rabies should be sterilized and vaccinated, but should not be returned to the streets under any circumstances.
The Court also instructed municipal authorities to create designated feeding areas for street dogs and prohibited the casual feeding of stray dogs in public spaces. Additionally, municipal authorities were required to establish dedicated helpline numbers that allowed individuals to report violations of the Court’s new regulations.
The Court also mandated that individual dog lovers must deposit 25,000 rupees (approximately 277 USD and 236 EUR) and that animal protection NGOs must deposit 200,000 rupees (approximately 2,216 USD or 1,889 EUR) with the Court if they wished to present further arguments regarding the issue of street dogs. This requirement marks a significant departure from India’s usual practice of supporting and encouraging Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Additionally, the Court has directed municipal authorities to submit an affidavit that includes detailed statistics on the resources available for managing street dogs as of the date the affidavit is filed. Furthermore, the revision made on August 22, 2025, broadened the order’s scope to encompass all States and Union Territories in the country, extending beyond just New Delhi and its surrounding areas.
The Court’s requirement for the 28 States and 8 Union Territories to file compliance affidavits became a significant issue. In August and September of 2025, only West Bengal, Telangana, and the municipality of New Delhi submitted the required affidavits. On October 27, the Court criticized the widespread non-compliance and ordered the chief secretaries of the twenty-six non-compliant entities to appear in person on November 3, 2025, to explain their failure to comply with the requirements.
In the four days following the Court’s public reprimand, the remaining States and Union Territories filed affidavits. These documents outlined various approaches to addressing the street dog issue, including sterilization and vaccination campaigns, the development of animal shelter infrastructure, the implementation of dog feeding regulations, and the publication of public safety measures.
The states of Goa, where the Mission Rabies NGO had conducted a statewide rabies vaccination campaign, and Kerala proposed the use of GIS mapping of dog populations. The state of Maharashtra moved to establish mobile dog sterilization units. However, the Court observed that while some affidavits were comprehensive and included relevant data and targets, others were perfunctory.
Due to the actions of the Court and its clear sense of urgency, there is now some reason for optimism regarding street dog management and the potential eradication of human rabies in India. States and municipalities are now addressing street dog management with much greater urgency, while the positive trends in human rabies incidence in India will be discussed in Part 2.