Supreme Court Shields Officials Implementing Stray Dog Control Measures, Allows Euthanasia of Dangerous Dogs

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that criminal proceedings should ordinarily not be initiated against authorities or officials implementing court-mandated measures to curb stray dog attacks across the country. A three-judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N. V. Anjaria held that government officials acting in good faith while carrying out such directions would be entitled to legal protection.

The Court clarified that FIRs against officials should only be registered where a prima facie case of mala fide intent or gross abuse of authority is made out.

The Bench further held that rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous and aggressive dogs may be euthanised by competent authorities after assessment by qualified veterinary experts and strictly in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, and other applicable laws.

Emphasising the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court observed that the right to live with dignity includes the right of citizens to move freely in public spaces without fear of dog attacks or similar threats. It said the State cannot remain a passive spectator when preventable dangers to human life continue unchecked.

The Court took note of increasing incidents across the country involving children being mauled, senior citizens attacked, ordinary citizens facing unsafe public spaces, and even international tourists becoming victims of stray dog attacks.

The Bench observed that implementation of the ABC Rules had remained sporadic, underfunded, and uneven since inception, resulting in a reactive and crisis-driven system. It remarked that the present crisis could have been avoided had States and Union Territories properly implemented sterilisation programmes, vaccination drives, and supporting infrastructure at the outset.

Warning authorities against continued inaction, the Court stated that non-compliance with its directions or those issued by High Courts would invite strict legal consequences, including contempt proceedings, disciplinary action, and civil liabilities against erring officials.

To address the issue effectively, the Supreme Court issued several directions, including strengthening the framework of the Animal Welfare Board of India, establishment of at least one fully functional ABC centre in every district, expansion of such centres based on population density, ensuring availability of anti-rabies medicines, and implementation of public safety measures in a time-bound manner.

The Court also directed the National Highways Authority of India to take measures against stray cattle on highways and create a monitoring and coordination framework for implementation.

The issue had earlier drawn national attention after Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan directed Delhi civic authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs, leading to protests by animal rights groups. That order was later modified by the present Bench, which shifted the focus towards vaccination, sterilisation, and release of stray dogs in accordance with the ABC Rules.

On November 7, 2025, the Supreme Court had directed States and the NHAI to remove stray animals from highways, hospitals, schools, and educational institutions. It also ordered fencing of government and private educational and healthcare institutions within eight weeks to prevent stray dog attacks and directed that dogs removed from such premises should not be released back there.

On Tuesday, the Court further directed all High Courts to register suo motu cases to monitor compliance with both the present and earlier directions. Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories have been asked to submit compliance reports before the respective High Courts by August 7.