The Supreme Court of India, while monitoring the alarming rise in stray dog bite incidents across the country, on Monday took a stern view of government employees who continue to feed and encourage stray dogs within official premises and public areas, despite explicit judicial directions against such practices. Expressing its disapproval, the apex court indicated that it will soon issue specific directions applicable to all government offices and public sector undertakings (PSUs) where such violations have been observed.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria observed that employees of several government institutions were disregarding earlier court orders that had restricted the feeding of stray dogs to designated areas identified by local bodies. The bench remarked, “We will be issuing directions with respect to government institutions and public sector undertakings where employees are feeding the dogs, and supporting and encouraging stray dogs in the area.” The comment came during a detailed hearing on the suo motu case initiated by the court to address growing concerns over public safety and the rising number of dog bite cases in various parts of the country.

The timing of the court’s observation was significant. The hearing took place in the presence of chief secretaries from almost all states and union territories, barring West Bengal, Telangana, and Kerala. Their attendance was mandated by a previous order dated October 27, after repeated non-compliance by the states with the court’s earlier directives. Notably, Kerala’s principal secretary appeared before the court on behalf of the state after its chief secretary was granted an exemption from personal appearance.

The Supreme Court had earlier, in August, directed all states and union territories to submit detailed reports on their implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, which outline the framework for humane management of stray dog populations. However, the bench noted with displeasure that, even after three months, only West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had submitted their responses within the stipulated period. This failure of compliance led to the court’s unusual move of summoning the top bureaucrats of every state to explain the delay in person.

During Monday’s proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state of Madhya Pradesh, informed the bench that all states and union territories have now filed their compliance reports in accordance with the October 27 order. The court, taking note of this, said it would now proceed to issue consolidated directions addressing both the prevention of dog-bite incidents and the enforcement of humane animal control measures under the statutory framework.

Justice Nath emphasized that the court’s intention was not to demonize animals but to ensure that public safety is not compromised. He remarked that the issue must be approached with “a balance between compassion and responsibility.” Referring to India’s global image, the bench added that recurring reports of stray dog attacks and fatal incidents have brought “disrepute to the country on international platforms,” calling for urgent corrective measures.

The bench reiterated that feeding stray dogs indiscriminately in public spaces, particularly near residential complexes, schools, hospitals, or government buildings, violates existing court orders. Under the current directives, feeding is permitted only in pre-identified spots designated by municipal authorities, ensuring that public safety, sanitation, and animal welfare are all maintained in balance. Despite this, numerous reports and complaints have surfaced about individuals, including government employees, feeding strays within institutional premises, leading to the proliferation of dog populations in sensitive public areas.

The court directed that the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) be impleaded as a party to the ongoing proceedings, recognizing its statutory role in overseeing animal welfare initiatives nationwide. Senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who is assisting the bench as amicus curiae, was instructed to prepare a comprehensive checklist of compliance points, categorizing responses received from various states and union territories. This checklist, the court said, would help identify gaps and lapses in implementation under different heads, including sterilization, vaccination, and designated feeding arrangements.

The ABC Rules, which derive their authority from the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, mandate a catch-neuter-vaccinate-release (CNVR) model for controlling the stray dog population. The system requires municipal bodies to capture stray dogs, sterilize them to prevent breeding, vaccinate them against rabies, and then release them back into the same locality. The rules prohibit large-scale relocation or culling of dogs, promoting humane and sustainable population control instead. However, the court noted that poor implementation, lack of coordination among agencies, and insufficient budget allocations have undermined the effectiveness of this model in several states.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Mehta further argued that while various stakeholders have been allowed to intervene in the matter—such as animal rights organizations and dog welfare groups—the voices of dog-bite victims should also be heard. “It is important that those affected by dog-bite incidents are also given an opportunity to express their concerns,” he said, urging the court to include victims as parties in the proceedings. Responding to this, the bench agreed and allowed victims to join as intervenors without requiring them to make the monetary deposit earlier imposed on private participants. Previously, organizations and individuals wishing to participate in the proceedings were required to deposit ₹2 lakh and ₹25,000 respectively, amounts that were directed to be used for the welfare of animals.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for one of the intervenors, informed the court that his clients had already prepared a detailed evaluation showing how each state and union territory had performed on various parameters set by the court. The bench welcomed this effort and permitted Singhvi’s team to share their findings with the amicus curiae for integration into the final report.

Having received assurance that all required responses were now on record, the court dispensed with its earlier order mandating the physical presence of chief secretaries in future hearings. However, the bench warned that their attendance could be required again if any state failed to comply with subsequent directions or timelines. “Their presence will become necessary in case there is any non-compliance of the court’s directions,” the bench clarified.

The judges also criticized the general apathy of certain state administrations, noting that it was their “lethargy and disregard for judicial orders” that had forced the court to adopt such extraordinary measures as summoning the top bureaucrats. This, the court emphasized, should serve as a reminder that compliance with its directives is not optional.

The suo motu proceedings were initiated on July 28, 2025, following a series of distressing reports about fatal dog attacks and a rise in rabies infections, particularly among children in Delhi, Kerala, and other parts of the country. The court had taken cognizance of widespread public outrage over these incidents and had sought to ensure that both animal rights and human safety were safeguarded through proper implementation of the ABC Rules.

As the matter stands, the Supreme Court will issue a set of detailed directions on Friday, expected to address several aspects: proper demarcation of feeding zones, stricter enforcement of sterilization and vaccination programs, accountability of local bodies, and punitive measures for individuals or officials violating court orders.

The court’s firm stance marks a crucial step in addressing one of the most contentious civic issues in India — the coexistence of humans and stray animals in urban spaces. Balancing compassion with accountability, the apex court’s forthcoming directions could reshape how municipalities, government institutions, and citizens collectively manage the stray dog population, with a renewed focus on both safety and humane treatment.