The Supreme Court of India on Friday rejected a request to allow state and Union Territory (UT) chief secretaries to appear via video conferencing regarding their non-compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The court, expressing sharp displeasure, directed the officials to physically appear before it to explain why they have repeatedly failed to curb the stray dog menace and submit compliance affidavits, despite clear instructions.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had sought permission for the chief secretaries to appear virtually, citing administrative convenience. However, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected the plea, stating, “No, let them come physically. It is very unfortunate that the court is giving time here, the government frames rules, and no action is taken. They are sleeping over the orders of the court. There is no respect for the court’s orders.” The bench emphasised that personal presence would not be waived, underlining the seriousness of the matter.

This refusal followed a similar denial a day earlier when Bihar’s standing counsel requested exemption for the state’s chief secretary due to the upcoming assembly elections. The court dismissed that plea as well, noting that the chief secretary’s duties related to elections did not absolve them of the responsibility to comply with court orders. “The Election Commission will handle everything in the state. Don’t worry. Let the chief secretary come,” the bench observed.

The issue has been under scrutiny since August, when the court expressed its dissatisfaction with most states and UTs for failing to submit reports on ABC implementation by their animal husbandry departments and local authorities. While Telangana and West Bengal were exempted for having complied, chief secretaries from other states and UTs, including Delhi, were summoned to appear on November 3. The court also noted that reports from municipal authorities alone were insufficient; the chief secretaries must take personal accountability.

Justice Nath had earlier observed that despite repeated deadlines and widespread media coverage, compliance reports were not filed. “Three months were given to them in August, but nothing has come on record. Continuous incidents are happening, and your country is shown in bad light at international platforms,” he remarked, warning that non-compliance could result in personal accountability and costs. The bench questioned whether officials ignored the court’s directions despite extensive media reporting and social media coverage.

The Supreme Court’s monitoring of this issue follows a series of dog-bite incidents, including fatalities, which have raised public safety concerns. The ABC Rules, 2023, mandate humane management of stray dogs through sterilisation, anti-rabies vaccination, and release in their local areas rather than mass capture or culling. Municipal authorities are required to operate sterilisation and vaccination programmes based on the catch-neuter-vaccinate-release model.

In August, a three-judge bench led by Justice Nath modified an earlier directive from a two-judge bench that had ordered mass capture of stray dogs in Delhi and adjoining districts. The bench clarified that such mass capture without release was excessively harsh. Under the amended instructions, dogs must be sterilised, vaccinated, and returned to their locality unless they suffer from rabies or exhibit aggressive behaviour. The order also mandated the creation of dedicated feeding spaces in each ward, while prohibiting feeding in public streets and residential areas to prevent conflict and ensure humane treatment. Violations would invite legal consequences.

The August directive also required all states and UTs to submit detailed reports from their animal husbandry departments and local authorities to enable a uniform national framework for stray dog management. Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram, and Faridabad municipal authorities were asked to proceed with regulated mass capture and shelter creation while ensuring treated dogs were returned to their localities.

To facilitate the process, animal welfare organisations and individual petitioners were directed to deposit funds—₹2 lakh and ₹25,000 respectively—with the Supreme Court registry, to be used by municipal authorities to construct facilities for stray dogs.

The court’s interventions came in response to repeated incidents, including the death of a six-year-old girl due to a dog attack. The initial directive from a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, which had ordered mass capture, drew criticism from animal welfare groups for being inhumane and inconsistent with statutory mandates. Following this, Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai reassigned the case to the Justice Nath-led three-judge bench to balance public safety with the ABC Rules’ statutory requirements.

By insisting on the personal appearance of chief secretaries, the Supreme Court aims to hold senior officials accountable for the welfare of both citizens and animals, stressing that government inaction cannot continue in the face of clear legal obligations. The bench has made it clear that mere filing of reports by subordinate authorities will not suffice; top bureaucrats must ensure compliance and take responsibility for implementation on the ground.

The matter highlights the tension between administrative compliance and judicial oversight, with the Supreme Court asserting its authority to enforce humane stray dog management while ensuring public safety. Officials who fail to comply with court orders now face potential legal consequences, reinforcing the principle that statutory rules must be effectively implemented rather than ignored.

The November 3 hearing will see chief secretaries from most states and UTs appear in person before the bench, as per the court’s directive, to explain the lack of compliance and outline the steps taken to enforce the ABC Rules. The outcome is expected to set a precedent for strict accountability in matters of public safety and animal welfare across India.