Stray Dogs & the Constitution: Supreme Court Reconsiders Shelter Relocation Mandate
In its August 11, 2025 order, Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan had directed the Delhi Municipal Corporation and other civic bodies to capture all stray dogs within eight weeks.
The Supreme Court on Friday delivered its verdict on interim petitions seeking stay of the controversial suo motu order of August 11, 2025. The order directs local civic bodies in Delhi and its four adjoining districts to capture and keep all stray dogs in shelters within six to eight weeks.
A bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, had reserved the matter after hearing. The bench had also said that the local civic bodies were failing to properly control the public health hazards posed by stray dogs.
The suo motu case was first before a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala, but was later assigned to a three-member bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai. The rescheduling was done on August 13, 2025, following a representation to the Chief Justice by a lawyer referring to the May 9, 2024 order that ensures compassionate treatment of stray dogs. In an unusual administrative decision, the CJI withdrew the matter from Justice Pardiwala’s bench and assigned it to Justice Nath’s bench.
In its August 11, 2025 order, Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan had directed the Delhi Municipal Corporation and other civic bodies to capture all stray dogs within eight weeks and keep them in dedicated shelters and not to release them back on the streets. It was also asked to set up shelters that can accommodate at least 5,000 stray dogs.
Here are key updates on the issue so far:
- SC order stayed:A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stayed the earlier order on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, directing the animals be picked up but also be released upon sterlisation and immunisation, unless the dog is rabid.
- No to street feeding:The top court also issued restrictions on public feeding, directing dedicated feeding stations to be created. Those flouting the directive will reportedly be liable to be proceeded with under relevant legal framework.
- Dog lovers, NGOs asked to pay:The Supreme Court has also directed dog lovers and NGOs who approached the court against the earlier order to pay ₹25,000 and ₹2 lakh each, respectively, for dog shelters.
- What stayed SC order said:The earlier order, which is now stayed, not only directed the picking up of dogs, but had also warned of strict action if any person or organisation came in the way. The court had directed authorities to create shelters to house the animals and not release them back.
- Hearing by three-judge bench:The Supreme Court heard the arguments against the August 11 order last week. The hearing saw arguments from both sides, for and against the order.
- Arguments in favour of move:While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, highlighted the number of rabies deaths, those representing the petitioners highlighted how there aren’t enough dog shelters in the Delhi-NCR region which makes the implementation of the order tricky. The Solicitor General said that there have been 37 lakh dog bite cases in an year, and 305 rabies death annually.
- Arguments against the move:When the Supreme Court asked Kapil Sibal, the advocate representing the petitioners, to specify what was objectionable with the order, he presented some arguments, all of which centered around the shortage of dog shelters.
FAQs
- What was the Supreme Court case about? —–The case concerned disputes over feeding stray dogs in residential areas and the resulting conflicts between animal lovers and residents concerned about safety.
- What did the Supreme Court decide on feeding stray dogs?—— The Court held that feeding is allowed but must be done in designated areas fixed by municipal authorities to prevent nuisance or danger to the public.
- Who will decide these designated feeding spots?—— Local municipal bodies, in consultation with Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and animal welfare organisations, will earmark safe feeding points.
- Did the Court address public safety concerns? ——-Yes, the Court emphasised balancing compassion for animals with the safety of people, especially children and the elderly, who may be at risk from aggressive strays.
- Does the judgment prohibit feeding strays altogether?——–No, it does not ban feeding but regulates it so it occurs in safe, non-obstructive areas.
- What did the Court say about sterilisation and vaccination? ——–The judgment reaffirmed the importance of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Programme to sterilise and vaccinate stray dogs to control their population and prevent rabies.
- Can RWAs or residents harm stray dogs to prevent nuisance? ———–No, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and prior Supreme Court orders prohibit cruelty towards stray dogs, and harming them is punishable.
- What happens if feeding guidelines are violated?———– Municipal authorities have the power to enforce compliance, and repeated violations can attract legal consequences, including fines or injunctions.
