Why can’t hospitals, schools, colleges have stray dogs on campus? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld its earlier order directing removal of stray dogs from schools, hospitals, colleges, railway stations and other institutional areas across the country.

In its reasoning, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria said that the existing animal welfare laws do not require "continued presence" or re-release of stray dogs in institutional areas.

“The statutory scheme under the PCA Act, 1960 and the ABC Rules, 2023 does not mandate, nor can it be interpreted to require or justify the continued presence or compulsory reintroduction of stray dogs within institutional premises or other restricted-access areas,” the Court said.

The Court was dealing with applications seeking recall and modification of an order it passed last year in November, directing authorities to remove stray dogs from institutional spaces (including schools, colleges, hospitals etc.) and ensure they are not released there again after sterilisation and vaccination.

The applicants (mainly Animal welfare groups) questioned the Court's interpretation of Rule 11(19) of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. They argued that the rule require sterilised and vaccinated stray dogs to be released back to the “same place or locality” from where they were picked up.

The Court, however, said the phrase “same place or locality” cannot be read in isolation.

To explain why, the Bench turned to the parent law - the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Act defines a “street” as roads, lanes and public spaces accessible to the public.

According to the Court, that definition becomes important while understanding how the ABC Rules operate.

“When Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023, is read in light of the aforesaid definition, it becomes evident that the expression ‘same place or locality’ cannot be construed in an unbound or expansive manner so as to include private premises, institutional campuses, or controlled-access spaces such as hospitals, colleges and similar establishments,” the judgment said.

In simple terms, the Court said the laws on re-release were framed keeping ordinary public streets in mind. They were never intended to apply uniformly to hospitals, schools, airports, sports complexes and similar institutional spaces.

Stray dogs cannot legally occupy spaces

The Bench also dealt with another argument raised by the applicants. They relied on Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules, which classifies 'street dogs' or 'community dogs' as animals found on streets or within gated campuses.

But the Court said Rule 7(2) only identifies categories of stray dogs for the purpose of regulation and population management under the ABC Rules.

It does not, according to the Bench, create a legal entitlement for stray dogs to indefinitely occupy every space where they may be found, particularly institutional spaces meant to maintain controlled and secure conditions.

“A classification provision, by its very nature, cannot be construed and interpreted to be a source of enforceable rights,” the Bench said.

The judgment drew a clear distinction between ordinary public streets and institutional spaces.

Hospitals, schools, colleges and transport hubs, the Court said, are expected to maintain controlled and secure conditions because they are used every day by children, patients, elderly persons and other vulnerable groups.

“These premises are expected to maintain a controlled, secure and hygienic environment, where human safety measures are to be maintained at the optimum level and all risk factors have to be eliminated,” the Court observed.

The Bench said interpreting the Rules to mandate re-release of stray dogs in such spaces would directly undermine the purpose for which these institutions exist.

The Court said it has the power to pass these directions

The Court also rejected the argument that its November 2025 directions violated the ABC Rules or travelled beyond its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The Court said that its directions were based on a “purposive and harmonious interpretation” of the statutory framework. It clarified that it was not overriding the law but interpreting it in a manner that balances animal welfare concerns with public safety.

It added that the November 2025 directions were issued after “due deliberation”.

“The order dated 7th November, 2025 was thus issued after due deliberation, with a calibrated approach aimed at reconciling the competing considerations of animal welfare and human safety,” the judgment said.

The Court also explained why it invoked Article 142 powers in the case.

It said the proceedings arose out of its suo motu jurisdiction and involved larger public safety concerns affecting citizens across the country, rather than an ordinary dispute between private parties.

“Where a situation discloses a continuing or recurring threat to public safety, health or dignity, this Court is constitutionally obligated to intervene and to devise appropriate remedial measures,” the Bench observed.

Can removing dogs make things worse?

The judgment also dealt with concerns raised by the applicants about the “vacuum effect” - a concept frequently relied upon by animal welfare groups throughout the stray dog litigation.

The argument was that if stray dogs are removed from a particular area, especially after sterilisation and vaccination drives, the vacant territory may end up attracting new, unsterilised dogs from nearby areas.

According to the applicants, this could actually worsen the problem by increasing territorial aggression, breeding and human-animal conflict.

The applicants argued that this is precisely why the ABC framework follows the Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release model. Under that model, sterilised dogs are returned to the same area so that other unsterilised dogs do not move in and occupy the space.

The Court acknowledged these submissions but said institutional spaces stand on a different footing.

According to the Bench, concerns about migration of dogs into an area cannot override safety considerations in places such as hospitals, schools, colleges and transport hubs, which are expected to maintain controlled and secure conditions.

The Bench also upheld the Standard Operating Procedures issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India after the November 2025 order.

It clarified that the earlier directions were not confined only to schools, colleges and hospitals. Similar measures could extend to airports, parks, tourist sites, recreational areas and other high-footfall public spaces depending on local conditions and safety concerns.

An exception for colleges

The judgment, however, left a narrow window for educational institutions that wish to continue housing stray dogs within campus.

The Court said the institutions', animal welfare groups or student bodies would first have to furnish an undertaking before the head of the institution accepting responsibility for any dog-bite incidents or similar occurrences within the campus.

The Bench clarified that unless such responsibility is formally assumed, no person or group could claim a right to feed or maintain stray dogs within educational campuses.

It is in this context that NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad emerged as the lone exception before the Court.

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

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 comes with 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 Bench then clarified that the same principle would apply generally to educational institutions seeking similar arrangements in future.

High Courts to monitor

With today’s judgment, the Supreme Court also passed the baton to High Courts to continue monitoring compliance with its directions on stray dogs.

The Bench directed all High Courts across the country to register suo motu proceedings to oversee implementation of the directions issued in the case, including sterilisation, vaccination, relocation and overall management of stray dog populations.

Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories have also been directed to file compliance reports before the concerned High Court by August 7. The Union government has also been directed to place implementation details before the High Courts.

The Court said the issue would now continue before High Courts to ensure sustained monitoring of compliance on the ground.

Meanwhile, the top court has retained overarching supervision of the issue and has kept the matter on November 17 to review compliance reports emerging from High Court proceedings across the country.

[Read Judgment]