Taking cognisance of a news report about a six-year-old girl’s death due to rabies, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued a suo moto order on August 11, 2025, directing authorities in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) to relocate all stray dogs to shelters within eight weeks. The order barred the return of stray dogs to public spaces, mandated their sterilisation, vaccination, and de-worming, and required shelters to be equipped with CCTV surveillance, sufficient staffing, and adequate provisions for food and medical care. Observing that it was sympathetic to dogs’ lives, the bench ordered that the picked up dogs should not be subjected to any mistreatment, cruelty or deplorable standards of care.

Subsequently, the matter was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, with submissions highlighting that multiple Supreme Court proceedings concerning stray dogs were pending before different benches, potentially leading to conflicting directives. The Chief Justice assured that the issue would be reviewed, and the case was directed to be listed before a three-judge Bench.

On August 7, 2025, the suo moto matter, along with similar other matters, was listed before a three-bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria. The bench heard the arguments and reserved its order. It pronounced an order on August 22 modifying the August 11 order. It stayed the prohibition on the release of stray dogs and directed their release to their area after deworming and vaccination.

38 new applications have been filed subsequent to the August 22 order. Six out of ten applicants have complied with the direction concerning the deposit of ₹25,000 and ₹2 lakhs by the individual and NGO applicants, respectively.

On October 27, the Court noted that other than the States of Delhi, West Bengal and Telangana, there was no representation and compliance affidavits filed on behalf of other States. Court directed Chief Secretaries of the other states/UTs to be present before the Court on November 3 “along with their respective explanations as to why compliance affidavits have not been filed.”

Next Date: November 3, 2025

Matters:
  • SMW No. No. 5/2025 – In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price
  • Writ Petition (C) No. 784/2025 – Aditya Jha v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors.
  • SLP (C) No. 14763/2024 – Conference For Human Rights (India) (Regd.) v. Union Of India and Ors.
  • SLP (C) No. 17623/2025 – Reema Shah Sunil Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Amicus Curaie: Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal

  • Justice Vikram Nath

  • Justice Sandeep Mehta

  • Justice N.V. Anjaria

Hearing Reports

A three-judge bench (Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria) pronounced its judgment staying its August 11, 2025, directive that mandated the permanent confinement of all stray dogs in shelters across Delhi-NCR, acknowledging that the “no release” clause was too harsh and impractical due to insufficient shelter infrastructure.

Key Directions:

  • Release After Sterilisation and Vaccination: Stray dogs, once captured, must be sterilised, dewormed, and vaccinated against rabies, and then released back to their original localities, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. This provision aims to prevent overcrowding in shelters and ensure compassionate treatment by returning dogs to their familiar environments.
  • Exception for Aggressive or Rabid Dogs: Dogs exhibiting aggressive behaviour or those infected (or suspected to be infected) with rabies are to be immunised and kept in separate shelters or pounds, not released back to public spaces. The court did not define “aggressive behaviour,” leaving room for further clarification.
  • Ban on Public Feeding: Feeding stray dogs in public spaces is prohibited nationwide. The court directed municipal corporations to establish designated feeding areas in each municipal ward, considering population density and stray dog concentration. Violators of the public feeding ban face legal action, and civic bodies must set up helplines to report violations.
  • Expansion of Scope to National Level: The court expanded the scope of the case beyond Delhi-NCR, impleading all states and Union Territories as parties to formulate a uniform national policy on stray dogs. All related cases pending in high courts were transferred to the Supreme Court, with the matter scheduled for further hearing after eight weeks.

Procedural Orders:

  • The Supreme Court directed that all States and Union Territories be included as parties in this case, represented by the Secretaries of their respective Animal Husbandry Departments, Secretaries of local bodies (such as Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, and Municipalities), and Administrators of Union Territories. This inclusion aims to gather information on the measures each authority is implementing to comply with the ABC Rules within their jurisdictions.
  • Directed the Registry to collect details of related pending writ and suo moto petitions from High Courts, which will be transferred to the Supreme Court for consolidated review.
  • Matter to be listed “after eight weeks for further directions and for receiving the compliance report.”

Read More:

  • A three-judge bench (Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria) reserved its judgment after hearing arguments on the prayers seeking to stay the two-judge bench’s August 11 order, which directed removal of stray dogs to shelters in Delhi-NCR.
  • The Court pointedly remarked that much of the stray dog problem stems from the “inaction” of municipal authorities over years.
  • Court also heard several interlocutory applications that raised concerns about the enforceability and consequences of the August 11 directive. They argued that there was a lack of sufficient shelter capacity and the risk of cruelty or culling.

The Supreme Court initiated a suo moto case taking cognisance of a news report about a six-year-old girl’s death due to rabies. Its bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The bench ordered the Delhi government and municipal authorities (MCD, NDMC) to begin the immediate removal of all stray dogs from all localities. Key points of the order:

  • Prohibition on Release: A key point of the order was that once a stray dog was picked up, it was not to be released back onto the streets.
  • Contempt of Court Warning: The court warned that any individual or organization obstructing the removal of the dogs would face strict action, including contempt of court proceedings.
  • Infrastructure Mandate: The authorities were directed to establish dog shelters with adequate staff for sterilization and immunization within eight weeks. The initial capacity was to be for at least 5,000 dogs.
  • Public Safety Measures: The court ordered the creation of a helpline within one week for people to report dog bites, with a requirement that the dogs be rounded up within four hours of a complaint.
  • Rabies Vaccine Information: The government of NCT Delhi was directed to publish detailed information on the availability and stock of rabies vaccines.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court of consultations with parents of rabies victims, who supported the initiative, and noted prior relocation plans had been halted by stays obtained by activists. Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal provided recommendations on implementation.

Read More: