The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that no criminal proceedings be ordinarily initiated against any authority or official entrusted with implementation of its directions to curb stray dog attacks in the country [In Re: "City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price" v. The State of Andhra Pradesh].

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria also ordered that rabid, incurably ill or dangerous/aggressive dogs can be euthanised by proper authorities to curb threat to human life and safety, subject to assessment by qualified veterinarian experts and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and other laws.

"In areas, where the population of stray dogs has assumed alarming proportions, and where incidents of dog bites or aggressive attacks have become frequent, and pose a continuing threat to public safety, the concerned authorities may subject to due assessment by qualified veterinarian experts, and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Animal Birth Control Rules and other applicable statutory protocols, take such measures, as may be legally permissible, including euthanasia, in cases involving rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous/aggressive dogs to effectively curb the threat caused to human life and safety," the Bench said.

The Court made it clear that government officials acting in good faith to ensure implementation of its directions shall be entitled to due protection of law for acts performed in good faith. It added that a first information report (FIR) against them can be registered only when there is a prima facie case of mala fide or gross abuse of authority.

The Court underscored that right to live with dignity encompasses the right to live without fear of threatening events such as dog bites in public places.

"The right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack or exposure to life threatening events, such as dog bites in public areas."

It observed that the State cannot remain a passive spectator when preventative threats to human life continue to proliferate. 

"This Court cannot also remain oblivious to the harsh and deeply disturbing ground realities emerging from various parts of the country, where young children have been mauled, elderly persons have been attacked, ordinary citizens have been left vulnerable in public spaces, and even international travellers have fallen victim to such incidents," the Bench added.

The Court made these observations after finding that the implementation of Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules since inception has remained sporadic, underfunded and uneven across country. The failure has resulted in a reactive and crisis-driven response, the Bench said.

“Had the States and the Union Territories acted with due diligence and foresight in implementing the mandate of the ABC framework from its inception, including the timely and based augmentation of sterilisation capacity, sustained vaccination rise and development of the adequate institutional infrastructure, the present situation would not have assumed such alarming proportions,” the Bench said. 

It noted that incidents of dog bites and stray dog attacks continue to occur across different parts of the country with alarming frequency and severity. The harm caused by such incidents is not merely statistical in nature but has grave human societal and public health consequences, the Bench said.

The Court said the directions issued by it earlier had not seen effective adequate implementation on ground. It warned that any continued non-compliance with the directions would be viewed seriously.

"Any continued non-compliance or apathy in implementation of the directions issued by this Court and even hereinafter by the jurisdictional High Courts shall be viewed seriously and the erring officials of the municipal authorities and the concerned departments of the States and Union Territories, shall render themselves liable for appropriate proceedings, including proceedings for Contempt of Court, disciplinary proceedings, and tortious liabilities." 

It passed a slew of directions to ensure implementation of ABC rules to curb dog bite incidents and relocation of stray animals from national highways.

The directions are as:

- State shall take necessary steps to strengthen and implement AWBI framework rules

- They shall ensure establishment of at least one fully functional ABC centre in each district.

- Having regard to population density of each district, the authorities shall take necessary steps to expand ABC centres.

- Informed and reasoned decision shall be taken to extend the direction of this Court to other public places having regard to ensure safe environment of the public at large. Such decisions shall be implemented in time bound manner.

- Ensure adequate availability of anti rabies medicine.

- NHAI shall address issue of stray cattle on national highways in a time bound manner.

- NHAI shall establish a monitoring and coordination framework.

The issue of stray dog management gained national attention last year after a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs, drawing protests from animal rights groups.

That order triggered widespread protests by animal rights groups and was later modified by the present three-judge Bench.

The modified directions shifted the focus to vaccination, sterilisation and release of dogs in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules. Since then, the Court expanded the scope of the case.

On November 7, 2025, as an interim measure, the Court directed States and the NHAI to remove stray animals from highways and institutional areas like hospitals, schools and educational institutions across the country. 

It also ordered fencing of government and private educational and health institutions within eight weeks to prevent stray dog bites, and directed that dogs picked up from such institutional areas should not be released back into the same premises.

Multiple petitions were filed challenging the November 7 order. The judgment on that was reserved on January 29

Today, the Court directed the High Courts to register a suo motu case to monitor implementation of the directions issued today and in earlier orders. Chief Secretaries and of all States and UTs have been directed to file compliance reports by August 7 before the high courts.

[Read Live Coverage]