Here is why Supreme Court carved out an exception for stray dogs in NALSAR campus

While the Supreme Court's May 19 judgment on stray dogs management emphasised on public safety and tightened accountability, it carved out a narrow exception allowing educational institutions to run controlled, campus-based stray dog housing initiative.

A Bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria otherwise firmly endorsed removal of stray dogs from hospital, college and school campuses and upheld restrictions on their re-release in such areas.

However, it was against this backdrop that the Court considered submissions pointing to a campus-based initiative at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, where an Animal Law Centre was said to be undertaking sensitisation and care activities.

The Vice Chancellor of the university had moved an application seeking exemption from the Court's earlier directions of November 2025.

NALSAR argued that it had already institutionalised humane management of stray dogs through its Animal Law Centre and had created a structured framework within campus for sterilisation, vaccination and sensitisation of students and staff.

Taking note of these submissions, the Court permitted the Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release model to continue at NALSAR “on an experimental basis.”

However, it was allowed subject to certain conditions. The Court directed the Animal Law Centre of the University to furnish an undertaking before the Vice Chancellor accepting tortious liability in the event of any dog-bite incident or similar occurrence within the campus.

The Court treated this as a limited, experimental model rather than a general rule, and permitted it only with strict safeguards and liability conditions.

“In case the Animal Law Centre wishes to carry out the work in terms of the Capture-Sterilise-VaccinateRelease (CSVR) model inside the campus of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, such activity can be permitted on an experimental basis, subject to the pre-condition that the Animal Law Centre shall furnish an undertaking to the Vice Chancellor of the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, that, in the event of any incident of stray dog bite occurring within the campus, the Animal Law Centre shall be liable to face tortious liability for the injury caused to the individual/s concerned,” noted the Court.

The Court clarified that this is not a dilution of its broader approach but a limited exception tied to accountability. It held those who choose to care for stray dogs must also take responsibility for ensuring public safety.

“The assertion of a right to protect or maintain stray dogs in public spaces cannot be divorced from the obligation to ensure that such actions do not result in harm to others,” stated the Court.

This exception reframed the issue as one of enforceable liability and marked a shift from the other directions that framed stray dog management largely in terms of welfare versus removal.

To reinforce this principle, the Court laid down a general rule applicable to all educational institutions and similar spaces.

“Insofar as the animal welfare groups or student-led bodies in educational institutions are concerned, it shall be mandatory for any such group or body operating within such campuses to expressly undertake such liability by filing an affidavit to this effect with the Head of the Institution concerned, failing which no such activity of maintaining or feeding stray dogs shall be permitted within the institutional premises,” it directed.

The Court further made it clear that institutional authorities would be responsible for ensuring compliance with these conditions.

“Failure to comply would entail suitable action against the Head of the Institution concerned,” emphasised the Court.

Ultimately, the Court drew a firm line. Public safety remains paramount. Any deviation is exceptional and would be allowed only when full legal responsibility is taken for the consequences.

[Read Judgment]