A timeline of what has happened so far
On 28 July, 2025, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan took suo moto cognisance of a news report on the death of Chavi Sharma, a six-year-old from Delhi’s Pooth Kalan.
On 11 August, 2025, the bench directed the Delhi-NCR authorities to catch all stray dogs under their jurisdiction and place them permanently in dog shelters.
Protests erupted across the country following this verdict, with many people even getting detained by the police. Eventually, CJI B. R. Gavai took matters into his own hands and shifted the matter to the bench of Justices Nath, Mehta, and Anjaria.
On 22 August, 2025, the bench of Justices Nath, Mehta, and Anjaria put the 11 August directives in abeyance and ordered the Delhi-NCR authorities to follow the ‘capture-sterilise-vaccinate-return’ method that is mandated by the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. Additionally, they asked the States and Union Territories to transfer their stray dog-related cases to the Supreme Court to be heard together so that they can come up with a pan-India resolution.
On 27 October, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the chief secretaries of all States and Union Territories except West Bengal and Telangana to physically appear before it on 3 November for failing to submit affidavits on the steps being taken for compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules in their respective jurisdictions.
On 31 October, 2025, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested that the chief secretaries be allowed to appear virtually, but the apex court refused it.
On 3 November, 2025, the chief secretaries appeared before the bench and tendered an 'unconditional apology' for failing to file affidavits. The bench also observed that officials feed strays at government offices, which violates the directions that the court had given mandating the establishment of designated feeding zones. They announced that they will be issuing directives to combat the “menace” of stray dogs in government, public, and other institutional spaces.
When senior advocate Karuna Nundy pointed out the irregularities in the demarcation of feeding zones by local bodies in Delhi, the bench said that she will be heard in the next hearing.
What the Supreme Court said on 7 November
On 7 November, 2025, the Supreme Court passed detailed directives on the management of stray dogs residing within public institutions, and stray cattle and animals on highways. Here is what they said:
On Stray Dogs:
-
The apex court directed all States and Union Territories to remove stray dogs from the compounds of public institutions, such as educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and depots, and railway stations.
-
The dogs should be caught, sterilised, and vaccinated but not released back into institutional spaces. Instead, they must be sent to dog shelters.
-
Fences, boundary walls and gates are to be built around the premises of these establishments so that stray animals can’t come in.
-
States will need to conduct a survey to identify all the government and private educational institutions from where stray dogs are to be removed. This is to be done within two weeks.
-
A nodal officer will be appointed by each institution for the upkeep and surveillance of each premise from which dogs are removed.
-
Inspections will be done at least once every three months to ensure that no stray canine lives within or in the immediate vicinity of the institution.
-
The court also mandated a constant stock of anti-rabies vaccines at all government and private hospitals.
-
It talked about effective waste management systems within these institutions so that there is no garbage to attract strays.
-
The Union education ministry must instruct educational institutions to hold awareness programmes that teach students and staff about preventive behaviour around animals, first aid in case of bites, and immediate reporting protocols.
-
The responsibility of this entire operation will fall on the respective jurisdictional municipal authorities of the States and UTs. Compliance reports must be submitted within eight weeks.
-
The Animal Welfare Board of India, which was made a party to the proceedings earlier, was directed to frame SOPs for the management of stray dogs and the prevention of dog bites within institutional areas. This is to be done within 4 weeks, and these SOPs must be implemented uniformly across the country. The case will be heard again on January 13, 2026.
On Cattle:
-
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and all transport and municipal authorities were directed by the Supreme Court to ensure that there are no cattle or stray animals roaming around the highways.
-
These animals are to be relocated to suitable shelters, gaushalas, or cattle pounds and adequately taken care of.
-
Authorities must create highway patrol units to survey and keep a check on roaming cattle. These patrols will function around the clock.
-
Helpline numbers must also be prominently displayed along highways so commuters can report stray animals roaming about or accidents concerning stray cattle.
The implications of the 7 November order
There are a myriad implications and possible consequences of these directives:
-
Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules mandates that sterilised and vaccinated dogs be released back to their original localities. However, with its latest orders, the Supreme Court bench has now created an exception: if stray dogs live in the public spaces mentioned earlier, they must not be released back to these spaces, as the “primary objective” is to ensure citizens’ fundamental right to life and safety.
-
The stray dogs that are taken away from public institutions will now be kept in dog shelters for the rest of their natural lives, even if they are sterilised, vaccinated, calm, and disease-free.
-
Thousands of dogs will be displaced, fighting for mere breathing space in shelters that are underfunded, overcrowded, and just not ready to handle permanent residents. But that’s in spaces that at least have shelters. Even some of the megacities do not have large-scale shelters, such as Chennai and even Delhi. Mumbai only has 8 shelters for a population of 90,000+ dogs.
-
In any case, the States and UTs are struggling to do the bare minimum mandated by the ABC Rules, as reflected in their affidavits. Most ABC Centres are equipped only to vaccinate, sterilise and release. They barely have funds to do that, let alone house stray dogs permanently.
-
Some work was at least getting done on identifying feeding spots in different wards and conducting stray dog censuses in various parts of the country. Now that the limited resources will need to be redirected, even this work will, in all probability, come to a standstill.
-
Essentially, the bench of Justices Nath, Mehta, and Anjaria have circled back to a similar decision to the 11 August directives by the Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, just on a smaller but wider scale: this time, it’s about detaining strays who call public institutions their home across India.
-
The earlier concerns regarding the mass deaths and diseases among the detained dogs still ring true. These diseases may even spread among humans. The start of a plague-like situation, in which other disease-carrying scavengers take the place of dogs and create even more chaos, is also a possibility, like last time. With the removal of calm, human-accustomed dogs, the vacuum will be filled with unfamiliar, possibly aggressive dogs, which may bring greater danger.
What animal lovers and activists are saying
With the order being passed, bursts of protests were seen across the country and over the internet, with protestors gathering at Connaught Place on Saturday and India Gate on Sunday. However, these protests were short-lived, with the Delhi Police dispersing the crowd and detaining a few.
The unscientific and inhuman nature of the order is on the lips of every person who has raised their voice against it. The ‘capture-sterilise-vaccinate-return’ method of the ABC Rules, which is India’s official policy in stray dog management, is a method backed by the World Health Organization and the World Organisation for Animal Health. In fact, global and national data/experts have shown that forced relocation actually destabilises stray dog populations, increasing migration and breakdown of herd immunity against rabies.
But what’s even more apparent is the sheer lack of funds and resources to do what has been asked of the local bodies. There is a massive shortage of trained professionals, space, money, and time. Fencing and monitoring of large public institutions, especially spaces like bus stops and railway stations, is nearly impossible, to say nothing of the 8-week deadline.
It is logistically implausible, financially unthinkable, and may even crush the existing (albeit severely lacking) ABC infrastructure.
Many rescuers, activists and even institutions now face being separated from the stray dogs that they care for. Rescuers have even voiced that they’re ready to maintain, vaccinate, and take care of the dogs they look after at their own expense if they would only be allowed some designated space.
The most alarming thing, perhaps, is that the bench of Justices Nath, Mehta, and Anjaria refused to hear the submissions of any of the counsels present.
If the highest court in the land doesn’t listen to the voices that plead to it, who will?
Resources:
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/sc-stray-dogs-10351588/
https://thewire.in/law/remove-stray-dogs-schools-hospitals-bus-depots-railway-stations-supreme-court
https://x.com/gauri_maulekhi/status/1986736761914191874?s=20
