The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed petitions seeking a recall of its earlier order regarding the relocation and sterilization of stray dogs. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria also issued a series of directives to states, union territories, and statutory bodies to enhance infrastructure for managing stray dog populations.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
The apex court noted that it cannot remain oblivious to the harsh ground realities where children, international travelers, and elderly individuals have fallen victim to dog bite incidents. For the first time, the court permitted euthanasia for stray dogs that are rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous, aiming to curb the threat to human life.
The bench emphasized that preventing the euthanasia of such dogs is the most critical direction being issued to authorities and civic body officials. It clarified that any action, including euthanasia, must be taken after assessment by veterinary experts and in strict compliance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023, and other applicable statutory protocols.
Criticism of Current Efforts
The court also addressed petitions challenging the validity of standard operating procedures on dealing with stray animals issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India. It observed a discernible absence of sustained efforts by states and union territories to build infrastructure to address the rising stray dog population. The bench criticized the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework, describing it as largely sporadic, underfunded, and uneven across jurisdictions. The ABC framework includes sterilization, vaccination, sheltering, and scientific management of stray dogs.
Constitutional Obligation of States
The bench stated that states and union territories have a continued constitutional obligation to protect the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens under Article 21. This obligation is not passive but imposes an affirmative duty to take all necessary and effective measures to prevent conditions that threaten public safety, health, and well-being. Prolonged inaction and lack of institutional commitment to implementing the ABC framework have aggravated the problem, which now requires urgent and systemic intervention, the court said.
The court added, "The state cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate in the face of statutory mechanisms specifically designed to address them."
Media Reports and Public Safety
The bench referred to media reports on dog bite incidents in Rajasthan and other places, highlighting deeply disturbing cases where young children suffered grievous injuries, including mauling of faces and limbs by street dogs. Such incidents not only endanger the safety and dignity of citizens and visitors but also erode public confidence in civic administration and urban governance. The figures reveal staggering dimensions of the problem, with harm extending beyond statistics to significant human, societal, and public health consequences.
In November last year, the court had directed authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from state highways, national highways, and expressways.
