NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed all applications seeking modification of its November 7, 2025 order on the relocation and sterilisation of stray dogs, while permitting authorities to carry out euthanasia of dangerous and aggressive dogs where necessary to curb threats to human life.
"We have given detailed consideration to applications seeking recall of the November 7 judgement. We have dismissed all the applications. This court finds no reason to interfere with the November SOP by AWBI (Animal Welfare Board of India). The challenge does not merit acceptance in the light of conclusions hereinabove. All IAs challenging the SOPs stand dismissed," said the three judge bench, headed by Justice Vikram Nath.
The court, while allowing authorities to carry out euthanasia of dangerous and aggressive stray dogs if necessary to curb threats to human life, passed various directions in this regard.
The bench directed states to take necessary steps to strengthen and implement the AWBI framework rules.
"They shall ensure establishment of at least one fully functional ABC centre in each district. Having regard to the population density of each state and district, the authorities shall take necessary steps to expand ABC centres. All necessary measures shall be taken to implement the directions of this court and ensure that the same is implemented in letter and spirit," the bench said.
"Informed and reasoned decisions shall be taken to extend the direction of this court to other public places, having regard to ensuring a safe environment for the public at large. Such decisions shall be implemented in a time bound manner," it added.
The court further said in its judgement that the states must ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies medicine.
"The NHAI shall address stray cattle on national highways through deployment of appropriate transport vehicles in a time bound manner. NHAI shall establish a monitoring and coordination framework. The concerned authorities may take measures as may be legally permissible, including euthanasia in the case of rabid and dangerous dogs, to curb the threat to human life," the bench said.
"The officials of municipal authorities and states entrusted with implementation of the directions of this court shall be entitled to due protection for acts performed by them. No FIR or coercive steps shall ordinarily be initiated against such officials," it added.
The court, in its judgement, also noted that it was constrained to observe that prolonged inaction in the effective implementation of the ABC framework had aggravated the problem.
"Stray dog bites continue to occur. Reports reveal that the problem has assumed deeply disturbing proportions. In the city of Sri Ganganagar in Rajasthan alone, 1,084 dog bite cases were reported in a month. Young children suffered grievous injuries, including mauling of their faces, according to reports. Tamil Nadu recorded over two lakh cases in the first four months of the year," the court highlighted.
The bench further noted that it had been apprised of reports demonstrating dog bite incidents at airports, in residential areas and urban centres, reflecting serious inadequacies in management.
"The very occurrence of repeated dog bite incidents in the country’s busiest airports, including IGI, demonstrates grave inadequacy. A German traveller was bitten in Surat. Such incidents adversely affect public confidence in urban governance. The harm is not just statistical, it is unfathomable," it added.
The bench further warned that any non compliance with its directions would be viewed seriously.
"Contempt proceedings, disciplinary proceedings and tortious liability shall be initiated against states for non compliance," it stated.
"Right to life with dignity encompasses the right to live freely without the threat of harm from dog bite attacks. The state cannot remain a passive spectator. The court cannot remain oblivious to the harsh ground realities where children, elderly persons and international travellers have fallen victim to dog bite incidents. The Constitution does not envisage a society where children and elderly people survive at the mercy of physical strength or chance," the top court observed.