New Delhi, Jan 08, 2026 – The Supreme Court on Wednesday clarified that it has not ordered the killing of stray dogs, emphasizing that its earlier directions were aimed solely at ensuring public safety in institutional spaces and on roads, while holding municipal authorities accountable for years of non-compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria stressed that the November 2025 directives were limited to the removal of stray dogs from schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots, and railway stations—high-footfall areas where public safety is at risk. “We have not ordered ‘capture the dogs and shoot them,’” the bench remarked, clarifying that its intervention seeks to enforce the ABC framework rather than undermine it.

The court highlighted that stray dogs pose hazards beyond bites, particularly on roads and in public institutions, where they can contribute to accidents and injuries. “It is not only the dog would bite and chase somebody and an accident can occur. While they are running on the road it is a problem. They might not bite, but they still cause accidents. Prevention is always better than cure. The roads have to be clear and cleaned of dogs,” the bench said.

Responding to submissions that stray dogs generally remain within compounds, the court dismissed such claims as outdated and disconnected from reality, reiterating that the November order applies strictly to institutional areas, not public streets. “Institutions are not public streets. Why should there be dogs in schools, hospitals, and office areas?” the bench questioned.

The Supreme Court also condemned the systemic failure of municipal authorities. Despite repeated directions since 2018, many states and Union territories failed to implement sterilisation, vaccination, shelter creation, and waste management measures, or even submit affidavits detailing progress. The bench warned that non-compliance could attract strict action.

Senior advocates representing animal welfare groups—including Kapil Sibal, KK Venugopal, Colin Gonsalves, Anand Grover, and CU Singh—urged the court to consider expert committees and institution-specific solutions, warning that abrupt removal without sufficient sterilisation or shelter could worsen public health risks.

However, the bench noted that public safety cannot be indefinitely postponed due to administrative lapses. “Because authorities are not complying, people should continue to suffer?” it remarked, underscoring the state’s obligation under Article 21 to protect citizens from preventable harm.

In November 2025, the bench had already ruled that stray dogs could not be re-released in high-risk institutional premises after sterilisation, deviating from the catch-neuter-vaccinate-release (CNVR) model, given poor on-ground implementation, weak waste management, and inadequate perimeter controls.

On Wednesday, the court reiterated that it will hear all stakeholders, including victims of dog attacks and animal welfare groups, before issuing further directions. “We will hear everyone—the victims, then the haters and the lovers, both,” it said, signaling a balanced approach that aims to protect human safety while respecting animal welfare.

The hearing is set to continue on Thursday.