The Supreme Court is slated to deliver its judgement today 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 had reserved its verdict on January 29.

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 and issued several interim orders on related issues.

Notably, 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 these petitions is likely to be pronounced today.

Live updates from the hearing today feature on this page.

Bench assembles, pronouncement of judgment begins.

Supreme Court: We have divided the judgement into three parts. We have given detailed consideration to applications seeking recall of Nov 7 judgement. We have dismissed all the applications.

Supreme Court: In para 85 we have concluded - this court finds no reason to interfere with the Nov SOP by AWBI. The challenge does not merit acceptance in the light of conclusions herein above. All IAs challenging the SoPs stands dismissed.

Supreme Court: This court cannot lose sight that ABC framework was introduced in 2001. There has been discernible absence of efforts to expand and quantify infrastructure in proportion to increasing population of stray dogs.

It had remained sporadic, lacking institutional depth. Sterilisation and vaccination drives been taken place without planning. It defeats the objects of the framework. Had states acted with due foresight, the present situation would not have assumed such alarming proportions.

Supreme Court: This court is constrained to observe that pronounced inaction on effective implementation of ABC framework has resulted in an aggravation of the problem. Stray dog bites continue to occur. Reports reveal that the problem has assumed deeply disturbing proportions.

In the city of Sri Ganga nagar in Rajasthan alone 1,084 dog bites were reported in a month. Young children suffered grievous injuries, including mauling of their faces etc according to reports. TN recorded 2 lakh odd in the first four months of the year.

Supreme Court: We are apprised of reports that demonstrate dog bite incidents in airports, residential areas, urban centres etc. the very occurrence of repeated dog bite incidents in the country’s busiest airports (IGI) demonstrates grave inadequacy.

A German traveller was bitten in Surat. Such incidents adversely affect public confidence in urban governance.

Supreme Court: The harm is not just statistical, it is unfathomable. Notwithstanding the directions issued on August 22, 2025 and November 7, 2025, the material placed on records, that the directions have been percolated to ground level. Any non compliance to the directions of this court shall be viewed seriously. Contempt proceedings, disciplinary proceedings and tortious liability shall be initiated against states for non-compliance.

Supreme Court: Obligations of state necessitate creation of framework. Right to life with dignity encompasses right to life freely without threat of harm of dog bite attack. State cannot remain a passive spectator.

Supreme Court cannot remain oblivious to harsh ground realities where children, international travellers, old age people have fallen victim to dog bite incidents. Constitution doesn’t envisage a society where children, elderly people are to survive on the mercy physical strength, chance

Directions of Supreme Court

State shall state necessary steps to strengthen and implement AWBI framework rules

They shall ensure establishment of at least 1 fully functional ABC centre in each district.

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

All necessary measures to be taken to implement the directions of this court and ensure that the same is implemented in letter and spirit and ensure implementation kr AWB rules.

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 stray cattle on national highways etc deployment of depreciated transport vehicles to handle stray cattle etc. in a time bound manner.

NHAI shall establish a monitoring and coordination framework.

Concerned authorities may take measures as may be legally permissible including euthanasia in case of rabid, dangerous dogs to curb the threat to human life.

Officials of municipal authorities, states etc entrusted with implantation of directions of this court shall be entitled to due protection in the acts performed by them.

No FIR, coercive steps shall be ordinarily initiated against such officials.

HC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders to prevent vexatious proceedings against such officials.

Entrusting HCs responsibility for monitoring would ensure engagement with local conditions

All HCs shall register suo motu case in continuing mandamus for monitoring compliance of the directions of this court.

Any continued failure shall make officers liable to proceedings in appropriate law.

Contempt proceedings shall be started against officials who deliberately disregard directions of this court.

Chief secretaries of states shall file compliance before 7th August before jurisdictional high court.

Union shall also do the same.

Consolidated compliance report by the HCs shall be placed before this court on November 17. Matter shall remain closed except for receiving compliance reports.

Judgment ends.