In a landmark move, the Supreme Court of India has issued a sweeping order mandating the removal of stray dogs from schools, hospitals, transport stations, and other public institutions. The directive, delivered on November 7, 2025, marks one of the most decisive judicial interventions in the country’s long-running struggle to balance animal welfare with public safety.
The decision comes amid mounting concern over the alarming rise in dog bite incidents across India, many resulting in serious injuries and even deaths. Reports suggest over 20,000 bite cases in recent months, with Delhi alone averaging 2,000 daily incidents. This surge, coupled with rising cases of rabies, compelled the apex court to take suo motu cognizance, framing the issue as an urgent matter of public health and institutional security.
Legal Background and Rising Controversy
India’s current framework for managing stray dogs stems from the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which promote a humane “catch-neuter-vaccinate-
However, with the explosion of bite cases and public outcry, the model’s effectiveness has been questioned. Critics argue that returning dogs to populated areas—especially near schools and hospitals—undermines safety and fails to prevent fresh canine influxes. Meanwhile, animal welfare activists defend the ABC model, stressing that stray dogs have the right to live in their familiar territories under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, which upholds compassion for living creatures.
The controversy intensified after earlier Supreme Court orders in August 2025 allowed for the reintroduction of sterilised dogs—except those aggressive or diseased. That ruling left civic authorities struggling with enforcement, shelter space, and conflicting directives from courts, NGOs, and local bodies.
The November 7 Order: A Sweeping Directive
In its latest ruling, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria charted a new course. The Court directed all states and union territories to immediately remove stray dogs from the premises of schools, hospitals, transport hubs, and sports complexes. Once captured, the dogs are to be sterilised and vaccinated, but not released back to the same locations. Instead, they must be rehoused in designated shelters managed by local self-government bodies.
To ensure compliance, the Court ordered that vulnerable site be identified within two weeks and secured—preferably with fencing or boundary walls—within eight weeks. Each district must appoint nodal officers responsible for surveillance, maintenance, and regular inspection. The Court also warned that non-compliance or obstruction—even from NGOs—would invite strict action.
Extending its concern beyond dogs, the bench also ordered the removal of stray cattle from highways, signaling a broader judicial effort to tackle animal-related hazards in public spaces.
Societal Implications and the Debate Ahead
The judgment underscores a shift in judicial priorities, placing public safety above administrative inertia and perceived lapses in animal management. Yet, the ruling has reignited debate. Animal rights groups fear the decision could lead to overcrowded, underfunded shelters and indirect cruelty, as few municipalities possess adequate infrastructure or budgets to house thousands of strays humanely.
Urban planners and civic experts also question the logistical feasibility of fencing every public institution and maintaining regular inspection regimes. Without sustained funding and inter-agency coordination, they warn, the order could burden already stretched municipal systems.
Still, for many citizens, especially parents and hospital administrators, the ruling offers relief and a long-overdue acknowledgment of the public health emergency posed by unchecked stray populations.
Compassion Meets Control
The Supreme Court’s latest intervention is more than a public safety measure—it’s a defining moment in India’s evolving social contract between humans and animals. By prioritising safety in institutional spaces, the Court has chosen to confront a painful paradox: how to uphold compassion while protecting lives.
The decision opens a new chapter in India’s struggle to reconcile ethical responsibility with practical governance. Whether this balance endures will depend on how effectively authorities, civil society, and animal welfare groups can collaborate—turning judicial intent into humane, sustainable action.
(With agency inputs)
