Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Stray Dogs Case After NHAI, Union And States Conclude Arguments

The Supreme Court, today, has reserved its Judgment in the matter pertaining to the menace of Stray Dogs in the country.

After hearing, dog-lovers, institutions, individuals, States and Union Territories, NHAI and the Union of India, the Court concluded the hearing.

While hearing various States, yesterday, the Court remarked that it will pass strong strictures against all the States that have put vague averments in their Affidavits in the matter pertaining to the issue of stray dogs in the country.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria ordered, "We have heard the counsels appearing for...Orders reserved. Counsels are free to submit their written briefs within a week."

The Bench was hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital. On August 11, the Court had directed the State of NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to pick up all stray dogs from the localities and public places in Delhi and put them in shelter homes. Such detained dogs are not be released under any circumstances.

Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal submitted that Punjab had initially failed to submit a clear action plan, leading to a scrutiny of the state’s actual progress. In response, Counsel for Punjab highlighted a ₹11 crore budgetary allocation and the deployment of 20 dog-catching vehicles across the state. While the state claimed to have formed district-level committees and a full action plan for institutional areas, the Bench remained sceptical regarding the results on the ground.

When pushed by the Court for specific figures on dog removals, the Counsel for Punjab could only confirm that 108 dogs had been collected from Malerkotla, promising to provide further data as it becomes available. Referring to earlier arguments that only 56 licensed centres exist nationwide, the Amicus explained that many facilities have become non-operational simply because their licenses were not renewed, a procedural failure recently highlighted in an affidavit by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

For Rajasthan, Agarwal submitted that the available dog shelters have not been pointed out in the Affidavit. He said that it appears that all private and government educational institutions have boundary walls and fencing. The state has not come up with a plan.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati for Rajasthan said, "We have 22 dog pounds. 21 have a capacity of 100. We will incorporate the suggestions. We have some budgetary allocations also."

The Court said, "In a city like Jodhpur, Jaipur, you would need more than 20 shelters in one city. How will you tackle it? Arguments have come that the CSVR has to be implemented. Unless there are vehicles and manpower, how will you manage that?"

Bhati replied, "We have sought budgetary allocations for that."

The Court replied, "If you don’t tackle this problem, it will keep on magnifying. Every year, the population will go up by 10-15%. You are increasing your own problems by avoiding this. As Punjab said, they are doing 100 dogs a day. No use. That’s a needle in a haystack."

For Tamil Nadu, the Amicus noted that despite a budget of ₹22 crore for 72 shelters, only 35,000 dogs are sterilized annually. The Court was shocked to learn that the State lacks a single fully functional government dog pound, with the affidavit remaining silent on removing strays from institutions.

The State of Uttar Pradesh reported over 8 lakh total sterilizations, including 40,000 in Noida alone. With 3,406 dog pounds and a ₹25 crore budget, the Court noted UP is performing better than its peers but must maintain momentum until "negative population growth" is achieved in the stray population.

The NHAI identified 1,317 vulnerable locations across 1,434 km prone to cattle-related accidents. Key highlights from their submission include: 1. Abandonment of male calves and "non-commercial" cows by villagers leads to highway ingress. NHAI proposed mandatory birth registration and microchipping of cattle to ensure traceability. 2. At the Court's suggestion, NHAI agreed to develop an app for citizens to upload photos of stray animals on highways for real-time tracking. 3.  While NHAI handles patrolling, they emphasized that local authorities must coordinate the removal of animals to goshalas. In Maharashtra, 2,691 cattle have already been removed. 4. The Court suggested that highway concessionaires should use CSR funds to build animal facilities along sensitive stretches to avoid dependency on local state bodies.

ASG Archana Pathak Dave appeared for the Union of India and referred to the "Nodal Officer" initiative, confirming that most central ministries have now appointed officers to manage the crisis. While health is a state subject, the Union provides funds under the National Health Mission for rabies drugs and capacity building, she said. She also informed the Court that dedicated task forces have been set up to manage urban hotspots, though the Court remains focused on whether these measures are actually reducing bite incidents on the ground.

Background

Previously, on January 20, 2026, the Court expressed displeasure over former Union minister Maneka Gandhi's remarks criticising the court orders in the stray dog matter, saying that she had committed contempt of court.

The Court had also said that it will consider the imposition of heavy compensation for States for not making the requisite arrangements and the dog feeders for every dogbite and death.

On January 9, 2026, the Supreme Court said it would not go into the allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by purported anti-feeder vigilantes since it was a law-and-order issue, and the aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs about it.

The Supreme Court proceedings on January 9, 2026, highlighted a deep divide between public safety concerns and the scientific management of stray dogs. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that the ABC Rules 2023 are the result of decades of parliamentary deliberation and that sterilization, not culling, remains the only effective solution. She blamed the current "catastrophe" on regulatory failure and the underutilization of funds. However, the Bench expressed frustration with the lack of progress, with Justice Nath warning that the Court might fix heavy compensation on States and dog feeders for every bite or death, emphasizing that the effects of a dog bite are lifelong.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar strongly challenged the ABC Rules, calling them ultra vires and in conflict with over 60 laws. He raised an ecological alarm regarding 50,000 feral dogs in Ladakh threatening endangered species like the snow leopard. Datar further argued that street dogs have no right to reside in public institutions or gated communities if the majority of residents oppose them.

Justice Mehta supported this concern by citing the "terminal" threat of canine distemper virus spread by dogs to forest wildlife and comparing the situation to the invasive python crisis in Florida.

On the welfare side, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand and others argued that mass removal is counterproductive due to the "vacuum effect," where more aggressive dogs move into cleared territories. They suggested that dogs also play a vital role in urban ecosystems by controlling rodent populations. Counsel for singer Mohit Chauhan and other advocates pushed for the formal recognition of "individual feeders" as partners to authorities, suggesting that compassionate management and adoption policies for "Indie" breeds are more sustainable than relocation.

The Court also addressed massive logistical hurdles, including a severe shortage of accredited ABC centers—only 76 nationwide to manage 5.2 crore dogs. Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal estimated a requirement of ₹26,800 crore for infrastructure and proposed a 60:40 fund-sharing model between the Centre and States. With the Bench growing weary of the lengthy arguments, Justice Mehta remarked that the proceedings had become more of a "public platform" than a court case, noting that "no one has argued for human beings so compassionately" as they have for animals.

The Court, on January 7, 2026, had remarked against the local authorities for their failure to monitor and implement statutory rules effectively, leading to an uncontrollable surge in stray animal incidents.

The Court, on August 22, had partially modified its previous order directing the capture and shifting of dogs from the streets in Delhi NCR. The Three Judges Bench directed that the stray dogs that will be picked up shall be sterilized, vaccinated and released back to the same area from which they were picked up. However, stray-dogs inflicted with rabies or with aggressive behaviour were not to be released into the streets. The court has also proposed to expand the scope of this matter beyond the confines of New Delhi and the NCR region.

While responding to a Petitioner in the stray dogs case who objected to some Rules framed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC), saying 'inhuman' treatment was being meted out to them, the Supreme Court had said that a video will be played in the next hearing, "asking you what is humanity".

On November 7, taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog bite incidents within institutional areas like educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the Apex Court had directed the forthwith relocation of stray canines to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.

Previously, while hearing the Suo-Moto Writ Petition on the issue of dog-bites reported in Delhi and the areas on the outskirts, urged genuine stray dog lovers to take care and upkeep of the stray dogs responsibly at the dog shelters or pounds. The Court urged thus while directing the State of NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to pick up all stray dogs from the localities and public places in Delhi and put them in shelter homes.

Cause Title: In Re: City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh [SMW(C) No. 5/2025 Diary No. 41706/2025]