The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in the suo motu case initiated by it last year to examine measures being taken to manage the stray dog population across India.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria reserved its verdict today after hearing the final leg of submissions made by various States, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).

The Court today urged the NHAI to come up with an app through which public can report sightings of stray animals along highways.

"Why don’t you make an app so that anyone who spots an animal can click a picture and upload? You will have visuals," the Court said.

"We will do that," the NHAI's counsel replied.

Notably, as the hearing drew to a close, the AWBI's counsel apprised the Court that there were only 76 recognised sterilisation centres in the country, while data from various States indicated that there were 883 stray dog sterilisation centres.

"There are certain pending applications. There are more than 250 applications ... There are 883 running, as per data given by States, but they have not yet been given recognition by us," the counsel said.

"What is happening in the centres that you (AWBI) have not recognised?" the Court eventually asked.

This led the AWBI's counsel to flag a discrepancy in some of the data on sterilisation, possibly indicating that the numbers were not as accurate as claimed. It also raised concerns that funds earmarked for sterilisation were being taken by those not actually carrying out such work.

"There is surprising data. Where the dog population is less like in Uttarakhand, the sterilisation is more (the sterilisation numbers reported are more than the dog population numbers)," the counsel said.

"The reasons are obvious. Everyone is aware of it. How much grant is given," the Court observed.

"Less said, the better," the counsel added.

"Yes. Less said is better," the Court said,

It added,

"The only request to the AWBI is whatever applications are pending, you should process them, and either you reject them or grant them within a specified time."

The Court then proceeded to reserve its judgment.

"Order reserved. Counsel are free to submit their written briefs within a week," it said.

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.

During the hearing on December 7, the Court flagged the increasing number of dog bite incidents in the country and called out the municipal authorities and other local bodies for their failure to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules.

Yesterday's hearing in the matter also saw the Court express displeasure at what it perceived to be a lack of adequate measures taken by various States to sterilise stray dogs, establish dog pounds and remove dogs from campuses of educational and other institutions.

The Court warned that it would pass strong strictures against any State found making vague arguments in their affidavits.

The Court today continued hearing various States on the facilities they have in place to monitor and manage stray dogs.

The hearing saw the Court express concerns over whether State governments are allocating sufficient budgets to fund such facilities.

This was after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, who represented the Rajasthan government, told the Court that there were 22 dog pounds in the State. The Bench opined that this number seemed inadequate.

"In a city like Jodhpur or Jaipur, you would need more than 20 shelters in one city. How will you tackle it? The arguments have come that the CSVR has to be implemented. Unless there are vehicles and manpower, how will you manage that?" the Court asked.

"We have sought budgetary allocations," Bhati replied.

The Court, however, was not reassured.

"If you don’t tackle this problem it will keep on magnifying. Every year the population will go up by 10-15%. You are increasing your own problems by avoiding this. As Punjab said, they are doing 100 dogs a day. No use. That’s a needle in a haystack," it said.

Earlier in the hearing, the Punjab government's counsel had told the Court that it has collected about 108 dogs from educational/ health institutions in the city of Malerkotla. The State added that it was working with a 11-crore budget and 20 dog catching vehicles, and that it had an action plan in place.

In Tamil Nadu, only 35,000 dogs per year have been sterilised, Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agrawal informed the Court.

"22 crore has been sanctioned for 72 shelters with 120 capacity. State has acknowledged the need to create more shelters. Affidavit is silent about the removal of stray dogs from institutions. There is no fully functional government animal shelter," he added.

"There is not even a single dog pound in the entire State?" the Court asked.

Tamil Nadu's counsel replied,

"Tamil Nadu has capacity that is not being utilised. The instruction has gone to the State."

The Court proceeded to note that the position in Uttar Pradesh (UP) seemed to be better than most States. The UP government's counsel said,

"There are 3,406 dog pounds... there are 8 lakh plus sterilisations in the state. More than 40,000 in Noida alone. It is an ongoing process. 25 crore budget allocation for the State. We have identified lands for shelters with capacity of over 1000."

"Noida has 1 ABC Centre," amicus Agarwal added.

"Better in comparison to other States. Till you start reaching the status of negative population growth, you have to keep doing it," the Court said.

"We will come up with better figures. Give us some time," UP's counsel replied.

The counsel representing the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) told the Court that active efforts are underway to remove stray animals found roaming on national highways.

"We have been able to locate 1,317 vulnerable locations spanning over 1,434 km. We have established patrol teams and drafted SOP detailing protocol for securing, isolating stray animals etc. We cannot undertake the exercise in isolation. It has to be in coordination with all local authorities. Anyone who sees the animal can call us on our helpline number," he said.

The Court suggested that an app could also be rolled out to report sightings of stray animals on highways.

A discussion also ensued on how to tackle the issue of stray cattle on highways, particularly since many such animals are not microchipped for identification and given that gaushalas taking care of injured or abandoned cattle are often overcrowded.

The Court suggested that entities tasked with building and managing highway stretches could be requested to maintain some facilities for stray cattle as well in their respective areas, as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects.

"There are very sensitive stretches where the problem is critical. Why can’t you ask concessioners to set up facilities? They don’t need to depend of local authorities. It can be part of corporate social responsibility. Once you start the process, it may work out," the Court said.

As arguments progressed, the Court also made it clear that management of stray animals on national highways would primarily be the responsibility of the NHAI.

"The task of patrolling should be that of the NHAI. Don’t pass that on to the State," the Court said.

ASG Archana Pathak Dave told the Court that steps are being taken to comply with earlier directions, including the appointment of nodal officers in government-run institutions.

"We have a national rabies control program. Under the national health mission, funds are provided for rabies drugs, capacity building, healthcare staff etc. We have set up city task forces. We have disseminated information to all ministries," she added.

Another counsel sought to flag a religious angle to the issue.

"I want to mention the religious aspect. Culling of dogs, offence is made under pitrapaksh, manusmriti has recitals," he said.

The Court did not hear him in detail and suggested that his stance be submitted as a note.

[Read Live Coverage]