The Supreme Court docket has reserved its verdict within the suo motu stray canine case. It indicated that events could file temporary written submissions inside one week, bringing to a detailed hearings that traversed problems with public security, public well being, animal welfare, constitutional obligations, and administrative enforcement.
The Apex Court docket cautioned that it could not hesitate to document antagonistic findings towards states and native authorities that filed imprecise, evasive, or non-committal affidavits, significantly the place statutory duties underneath municipal legal guidelines and public well being frameworks had not been discharged successfully.
In July 2025, the highest courtroom of the nation took cognisance of media studies highlighting a pointy rise in canine chew incidents and rabies instances, particularly affecting youngsters within the Nationwide Capital Territory of Delhi. Terming the difficulty considered one of critical public concern, the Court docket invoked its jurisdiction underneath Article 32 of the Structure.
In earlier orders, the Court docket exercised its extraordinary powers underneath Article 142 to direct civic authorities in Delhi to take away stray canine from public areas and institutional areas, together with faculties, hospitals, and railway stations, and to deal with them in designated shelters. It made clear that indiscriminate launch of such animals was impermissible, significantly the place public security was in danger.
In the course of the hearings, the Court docket examined the implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; the Animal Delivery Management (ABC) Guidelines, 2023; and varied municipal statutes and public well being laws. The Bench repeatedly underscored that whereas animal welfare loved statutory and constitutional recognition, it couldn’t override the state’s non-derogable obligation to guard human life and security underneath Article 21 of the Structure.
It additionally thought of competing submissions on whether or not sterilisation alone was ample to handle the disaster, or whether or not relocation, confinement, and stricter enforcement measures have been required in high-risk zones.
Submissions by the Amicus Curiae delivered to mild important disparities within the responses of various States. Punjab and Rajasthan got here underneath judicial scrutiny for failing to put earlier than the Court docket clear, data-backed motion plans, regardless of claiming budgetary allocations, shelter amenities, and administrative committees. The Bench expressed dissatisfaction with the absence of verifiable outcomes on the bottom.
Tamil Nadu’s affidavit revealed that regardless of substantial allocations for shelters and sterilisation programmes, the state lacked absolutely useful government-run canine kilos, prompting concern over institutional capability. Uttar Pradesh, alternatively, reported large-scale sterilisation efforts and infrastructure creation, which the Court docket acknowledged, whereas cautioning that sustained implementation was crucial to realize inhabitants management.
The Nationwide Highways Authority of India (NHAI) apprised the Bench about weak freeway stretches vulnerable to accidents involving stray animals. On the Court docket’s suggestion, NHAI agreed to discover technological interventions, together with a citizen-facing software for real-time reporting of stray animals on highways. The Bench additionally emphasised the necessity for coordination between freeway authorities and native our bodies to make sure well timed elimination of animals from accident-prone zones.
The Counsel showing for the Union authorities knowledgeable the Court docket in regards to the appointment of nodal officers throughout ministries and the availability of monetary help underneath the Nationwide Well being Mission for rabies prevention and capability constructing.
Whereas acknowledging that public well being was primarily a state topic underneath the Seventh Schedule, the Court docket remained centered on outcomes slightly than coverage assurances.
In the course of the proceedings, some counsels challenged the validity of the ABC Guidelines, whereas others defended sterilisation as the one scientifically accepted methodology of inhabitants management, cautioning towards indiscriminate elimination as a result of ‘vacuum impact’.
The Bench noticed that compassion for animals, recognised underneath Article 51A(g), have to be harmonised with the constitutional mandate to safeguard human life, dignity, and safety.
