Updated on: Nov 04, 2025 | New Delhi

The Supreme Court of India on Monday took serious note of ongoing violations of its earlier directives concerning designated stray dog feeding spots, observing that government offices and public sector undertakings (PSUs) were openly feeding stray dogs, thereby encouraging their presence in public spaces. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, said it would issue specific directions on this matter on November 7, 2025.

Background of the Case

The matter pertains to a suo motu case initiated on July 28, 2025, following reports of a rising number of stray dog attacks and rabies cases, particularly among children in Delhi and other parts of India. The Court had earlier directed states and Union territories to establish designated feeding zones for stray dogs and implement sterilisation, anti-rabies vaccination, and humane stray dog management through the Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release (CNVR) model, as per the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.

Despite repeated orders, incidents of dog bites continued to occur, leading the Court to remark earlier that the ongoing violations were bringing disrepute to the country internationally.

Attendance of Chief Secretaries and Compliance Reports

On Monday, chief secretaries of most states and Union territories were present in Court after being summoned last month for failing to file compliance reports regarding ABC Rule implementation. Telangana and West Bengal were exempt as they had submitted their reports. The Delhi Chief Secretary was asked to attend despite the Municipal Corporation filing a response.

Kerala’s Chief Secretary sought exemption and sent the Principal Secretary in his place. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Madhya Pradesh, informed the bench that all states and UTs had now filed their responsesfollowing the Court’s October order.

Court’s Observations and Actions

The Supreme Court observed that violations were particularly concerning in government offices and PSUs, where employees were openly feeding stray dogs, creating congestion and safety risks. The bench stated, “We will try and give directions on the dog-bite incidents that are happening.”

The Court also directed the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) to be made a party to the proceedings. Additionally, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, assisting as amicus curiae, was instructed to compile a checklist of compliance under various heads, based on responses from states and Union territories.

Participation of Stakeholders

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the cause of stray dogs, informed the Court that his clients had prepared a checklist to demonstrate how states and UTs had fared in implementing the directives. The Court allowed this checklist to be shared with the amicus curiae.

The Court also opened participation for victims of dog bites, waiving the previous requirement of a financial deposit. In earlier hearings, dog lovers and organisations had been allowed to participate subject to payment of ₹25,000 and ₹2 lakh, respectively, which were to be used for dog welfare programs.

Future Compliance and Monitoring

With all states and UTs now submitting their responses, the Supreme Court relieved chief secretaries from mandatory physical presence. However, the Court clarified that any non-compliance in the future would necessitate their attendance.

This case underscores the dual challenge of public safety and humane treatment of animals, balancing the statutory mandate of the ABC Rules with incidents of dog attacks and rabies outbreaks.

Context on Stray Dog Management in India

India has long struggled with the issue of stray dogs in urban areas. The ABC Rules provide a legal framework to control dog populations without resorting to mass culling, mandating sterilisation, anti-rabies vaccination, and regulated feeding zones. However, non-compliance, combined with public feeding in undesignated areas, has led to crowding, increased bite incidents, and public safety concerns.

The Supreme Court’s intervention reflects the judiciary’s continuing role in harmonising animal welfare with public safety, particularly in high-risk urban zones where children and vulnerable populations are frequently affected.

Key Takeaways

• The Court will issue directions for government institutions and PSUs regarding violations of designated feeding spot orders.
• AWBI is now a party to the proceedings, and a checklist of compliance is being prepared.
• Victims of dog bites can participate in proceedings without financial deposits.
• Non-compliance by states or UTs in the future will require physical presence of chief secretaries.
• The Court continues to monitor stray dog management and rabies prevention, ensuring adherence to humane practices under the ABC Rules.

With the next hearing scheduled for November 7, all eyes are on the Supreme Court to see how it strengthens enforcement of designated feeding zones and curbs the incidents of stray dog attacks, balancing both public safety and animal welfare concerns.