New Delhi: The Supreme Court on May 19, 2026 delivered its judgment in the suo motu case concerning stray dog management across India, dismissing all applications seeking recall of its November 7, 2025 order, upholding the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), and issuing a comprehensive set of directions to States, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), and High Courts.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria, which had reserved its verdict on January 29, 2026.
Background
The suo motu proceedings were initiated following nationwide attention on stray dog incidents and an earlier order passed by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directing Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs. That order triggered widespread protests by animal rights groups and was subsequently modified by the present Bench, which shifted the focus towards vaccination, sterilisation, and release under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
On November 7, 2025, the Court had directed States and the NHAI to remove stray animals from highways and institutional areas, including hospitals, schools, and educational institutions. It had also ordered fencing of such premises within eight weeks and directed that dogs removed from institutional areas should not be released back into the same premises. Multiple petitions challenging those directions formed the subject matter of the present judgment.
Court’s Observations
The Bench expressed serious concern over the scale and persistence of stray dog bite incidents across the country. The Court observed that the Animal Birth Control framework, introduced in 2001, had been implemented in a sporadic and unplanned manner without adequate institutional depth. It further noted that the continued inaction of States in effectively implementing the framework had aggravated the problem.
The Court recorded that in Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan alone, 1,084 dog bite incidents were reported in a single month, while Tamil Nadu had recorded over two lakh dog bite cases during the first four months of the year. The Bench noted that young children had suffered grievous injuries, including facial mauling. Incidents involving stray dogs had also been reported at airports, including Indira Gandhi International Airport, while a German traveller was reportedly bitten in Surat.
The Court held that the right to life with dignity under the Constitution encompasses the right to live free from the threat of harm caused by dog bite attacks, and observed that the State cannot remain a passive spectator. The Bench remarked that the Constitution does not envisage a society where children and elderly citizens survive at the mercy of physical strength or chance.
The Court further warned that non-compliance with its directions would invite contempt proceedings, disciplinary action, and tortious liability against States and erring officials.
Directions Issued
The Supreme Court issued a comprehensive set of directions for implementation across the country.
States have been directed to take necessary measures to strengthen and implement the AWBI framework and ensure the establishment of at least one fully functional ABC Centre in every district, with further expansion calibrated according to population density. The Court directed that all measures be implemented in a time-bound manner, both in letter and spirit, and that authorities take informed and reasoned decisions on extending such measures to other public spaces to ensure public safety.
The Court also directed States to ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies medicines.
The NHAI was directed to address the issue of stray cattle on national highways by deploying appropriate transport vehicles in a time-bound manner and establishing a monitoring and coordination mechanism.
Importantly, the Court permitted concerned authorities to adopt all legally permissible measures, including euthanasia, in cases involving rabid or dangerous dogs in order to curb threats to human life.
The Bench further directed that officials of municipal authorities and State governments entrusted with implementation of the directions shall be entitled to due protection for acts performed in discharge of their duties. It clarified that no FIR or coercive proceedings shall ordinarily be initiated against such officials, and that High Courts would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders preventing vexatious proceedings against them.
Monitoring Framework
The Bench entrusted High Courts with the responsibility of monitoring compliance, observing that such supervision would ensure engagement with local conditions and ground realities.
All High Courts have been directed to register suo motu cases in the nature of continuing mandamus for monitoring compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions. The Court observed that continued failure to comply would render officers liable to proceedings under the appropriate law, and that contempt proceedings would be initiated against officials who deliberately disregard the directions.
Chief Secretaries of all States have been directed to file compliance reports before their respective jurisdictional High Courts by August 7, 2026. The Union of India has also been directed to do the same.
The Court further directed that a consolidated compliance report from all High Courts be placed before the Supreme Court on November 17, 2026, after which the matter shall stand closed except for consideration of compliance reports.
Case Details: In Re: Managing Stray Dog Population in India (Suo Motu), Supreme Court of India. Before Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria. Judgment dated May 19, 2026.
