The Supreme Court of India on Friday issued a strong directive to all states and Union territories (UTs) to ensure the removal of stray dogs from sensitive public spaces, including educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots, and railway stations. The court emphasised that these animals cannot be released back into the same locations after sterilisation, warning that allowing them to return would “frustrate the very purpose” of safeguarding public safety.

The directive was issued by a bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, which is monitoring incidents of stray dog bites across the country through a suo motu case initiated earlier this year. The court’s orders reflect an effort to balance the humane management of animals with the safety and protection of citizens, particularly in areas with high footfall.

Immediate Orders on Stray Dog Management

During Friday’s proceedings, Justice Sandeep Mehta read the operative part of the order, stating that all stray dogs currently present in schools, hospitals, sports facilities, and transport hubs must be captured, sterilised, and vaccinated. The court made it clear that these animals will not be released back into the same locations, marking a significant shift from previous practices under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.

The bench instructed all state and UT authorities to, within two weeks, identify all government and private schools, colleges, hospitals, bus terminals, railway stations, and sports facilities. Within eight weeks, the identified areas must be secured to prevent the entry of stray dogs, preferably through the construction of boundary walls or other effective barriers. Each facility must have a nodal officer responsible for ongoing surveillance and upkeep. Local municipal authorities and panchayats are required to conduct periodic inspections for at least three months and submit detailed compliance reports to the Supreme Court.

In addition to targeting stray dogs in institutional premises, the court directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and other road-owning agencies to remove stray cattle and animals from national and state highways. These animals must be shifted to shelters to ensure public safety on busy roads.

Background of the Suo Motu Case

The case was initiated in July 2025 following a surge in reports of dog bite incidents, including multiple attacks on children and the elderly. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the need to implement the ABC Rules, which mandate sterilisation and vaccination under the catch-neuter-vaccinate-release (CNVR) model. However, the court has also clarified that public safety cannot be compromised, particularly in spaces frequented by large numbers of people.

During recent hearings, the court expressed dissatisfaction with widespread non-compliance by states and UTs. On November 3, the bench observed that government employees were feeding stray dogs inside office and institutional premises, despite earlier orders requiring designated feeding zones away from high-traffic areas. The bench had warned that further directions would target government institutions and public sector units where such practices continued.

The November 3 hearing also saw chief secretaries from most states and UTs appear personally before the bench after being summoned for failing to submit compliance affidavits. Only West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had filed the required reports at that time. The court repeatedly expressed concern over authorities’ inaction, noting that several states had failed to submit status reports on ABC implementation even after three months, prompting the unprecedented step of summoning top bureaucrats to explain delays.

Evolution of Court Directives on Stray Dog Management

In August 2025, the Supreme Court had modified an earlier order by a two-judge bench to permit the release of sterilised dogs back into their localities in accordance with the ABC Rules, with exceptions only for rabid or aggressive animals. The latest order, however, introduces a clear and firm exception for sensitive public spaces such as schools, hospitals, and transport hubs, where returning stray dogs is no longer permitted.

The court highlighted that the balance between humane animal management and public safety must be maintained. Nonetheless, the bench noted that recent incidents, including attacks in institutional premises, demonstrated the necessity for stricter control measures in locations where large numbers of people, including children, are routinely present.

Implementation and Oversight

The Supreme Court’s order sets a strict timeline for implementation. Within two weeks, states and UTs must identify the relevant premises, and within eight weeks, they must take effective measures to secure these areas against the entry of stray dogs. Nodal officers will be appointed for each facility to oversee ongoing surveillance and ensure compliance. Municipal authorities and panchayats are tasked with periodic inspections for at least three months to monitor adherence to the order.

The court also signaled that the National Highways Authority of India and other agencies responsible for road maintenance must remove stray cattle and animals from national and state highways and ensure their housing in shelters, highlighting the broader issue of animal management in public spaces beyond institutional premises.

Senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, assisting the bench as amicus curiae, had placed several suggestions before the court regarding practical measures for controlling stray dog populations. The bench stated that these suggestions would be incorporated into the final order to improve compliance and effectiveness.

Public Safety Concerns

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that the presence of stray dogs in areas such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots, and railway stations poses serious risks to public safety. Incidents of dog bites, attacks, and aggressive behaviour have raised concerns, particularly for children and vulnerable populations. By prohibiting the return of sterilised stray dogs to these sensitive areas, the court seeks to prevent repeated incidents and safeguard citizens while maintaining a humane approach to animal management elsewhere.

Future Monitoring and Compliance

The court has directed that the matter will be listed again once compliance reports are filed by the states and UTs. Authorities are expected to submit detailed reports confirming the identification of institutional premises, the capture, sterilisation, and vaccination of stray dogs, and the security measures implemented to prevent their return. The Supreme Court will continue to monitor the situation closely to ensure strict adherence to its directives.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s latest order represents a significant step in regulating stray dog populations in India’s most sensitive public spaces. By mandating capture, sterilisation, and vaccination while prohibiting the return of these animals to schools, hospitals, and transport hubs, the court has sought to balance public safety with humane treatment. The directive places responsibility on state authorities, municipal bodies, and nodal officers to implement measures effectively and ensures accountability through mandatory inspections and reporting.

As the matter returns for further monitoring, states and UTs face a clear mandate to secure institutional premises and maintain public safety, reflecting the court’s determination to address stray dog-related hazards in a structured and comprehensive manner.