The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which took objection to Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann's statement on elimination of stray dogs. .A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked the petitioner to move the Punjab and Haryana High Court..The Supreme Court had on May 19 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 veterinary experts and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and other laws.Pursuant to that, the Punjab CM had tweeted that the State will launch a campaign to eliminate dangerous stray dogs since Supreme Court has given a go ahead."Following the Honourable Supreme Court's decision, the Punjab government will launch a massive campaign starting tomorrow to eliminate stray and killer dogs that endanger the lives of children and pedestrians..Thanks to the Supreme Court," the CM said.The petitioner today took objection to the same."Punjab CM has tweeted that Supreme Court has given free hand to kill all the dogs," he said."Go the Punjab High Court. If the CM makes a statement, do we change our order? Strict compliance of the order is to be done by the High Courts. We told you the matter is assigned to the High Court. Go and make a request to the High Court," the Bench said."He (CM) says thanks to Supreme Court," the counsel pointed out."Very well, next case. You are free to go and file there. We are not entertaining your mention at all," the top court made it clear..If the CM makes a statement, do we change our order?Supreme Court.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. .Euthanise aggressive, rabid stray dogs if necessary, no FIR against officials acting in good faith: Supreme Court.Eventually, the Court on May 19 passed a detailed judgment. It declined to recall its earlier directions.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.Hence, it passed a slew of directions. It allowed elimination of dangerous dogs in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and other laws.It further held 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.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. It also 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..Why can’t hospitals, schools, colleges have stray dogs on campus? Supreme Court answers
