Stray Dog Case| We Will Consider Imposing Heavy Compensation For Every Dogbite And Death Payable By State And Dog Feeders: Supreme Court

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria ordered, “List for further hearing, on 20.01.2026, at 2 pm."

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted that the Supreme Court is currently navigating a complex policy issue that the Parliament has meticulously considered since 1950. She argued that the ABC Rules are not arbitrary but are the direct result of the Parliament "applying its mind" over several decades. To support this, Guruswamy pointed to parliamentary debates from 1957 and legislative developments from 1990, emphasizing that the current regulatory framework is a product of long-standing democratic and legislative deliberation.

Justice Nath said, "My request to all of you is let us now put it into motion and get things. My request to all the lawyers here who want to address is to allow us to take some action, allow us to pass some orders."

Justie Mehta said, "This has become a public platform rather than a court proceeding."

Justice Nath added, "Sorry, but your friends are for that only, at least you have done some research, you have come to the parliamentary debates of 1950...For every dog bite, for every death, we will likely be fixing heavy compensation for states not making the requisite arrangements. And also the dog feeders. You take them to your house, keep them, why should they be allowed to roam around, biting, chasing? The effect of a dog bite is lifelong."

Guruswamy emphasized that sterilization, not culling, is the only effective method to diminish stray dog populations. She argued that the current "catastrophe" is a direct result of regulatory failure rather than a lack of legal framework. Guruswamy pointed out that existing program centres are significantly underutilizing allocated funds and urged the Court to ensure that financial resources are directly provided to the organizations actively performing the work on the ground.

 Senior Advocate Arvind Datar submitted that the Court's November 7 order is fully justified and statutorily supported, arguing that an expert committee is unnecessary. He contended that the ABC Rules are ultra vires (beyond legal authority) and conflict with over 60 central and state laws. Highlighting a critical ecological crisis, Datar pointed out the devastating impact of feral dogs in wildlife sanctuaries, noting that 55,000 feral dogs in Ladakh now threaten nine critically endangered species, including the dwindling snow leopard population.

"As far as public institutions are concerned, people have access. It is different from having access and living there, having the residence. I can’t go and stay there (public institutions). And if a human being can’t stay there, an animal also can’t. No street dog has a right to be relocated in that place because he has no right to be there in the first place...a dog may enter the place, but he can't stay there, if he is removed, then there is no question of putting back because he had no right to be there in the first place.", Datar submitted.

Justice Sandeep Mehta asked, "Supposing there is an RWA in a gated campus. 95% of the RWA Residents do not desire the presence of dogs for the safety of their children and old people. Whether the desire of the 5% people who said that, these dogs, which are community dogs or street dogs living in the campus, should be continued there?"

Datar replied, "All people are taking advantage of this gated campus, and RWA says so. Once the dog is there, it is in the gated campus, it has got protection. My submission is NO. It is still a street dog. It just happens to be in a gated campus. What is the right of a street dog to remain in a gated campus?"

Datar further aaded, "My request is that the order may be extended to airports."

Justice Mehta replied, "Now we have a case where a lawyer was bitten in Gujarat, and the worst part is that when the municipal authorities went to capture the dogs, they were attacked by the lawyers."

Justice Nath added, "They (Municipal Authorities) were thrashed by lawyers, by these so-called dog-lovers." 

Datar submitted, "ABC rules is only for birth control. Even if that is achieved the danger of attack by dogs is not addressed by the ABC rules. ABC rules will not apply to feral dogs."

Justice Mehta said, "They carry a certain type of virus, so if they are allowed in the forests there have been instances, the tigers which attacked the dogs were infected with the disease called distemper, that is incurable. The animal is bound to die. it is terminal...Please go into the issue of Florida, where there were some people who were find of these exotic animals. They bought a Burmese python as pets, there was a hurricane, all the houses were destroyed, the Pythons were released in the open. Today the situation is that there is not a single endemic animal species is in Florida. The United States Government is spending millions of dollars."

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued that the crisis should be viewed as a broader human-wildlife conflict rather than a narrow "dog vs. human" issue, citing the high mortality rates from snake bites and monkey attacks. He emphasized that while dogs are not a keystone species, they play a vital ecological role in controlling rodent populations. He urged the Court to appreciate these interdependencies to ensure that any intervention maintains a balanced urban ecosystem.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued for peaceful coexistence over conflict, noting that Indian philosophy and educational policies emphasize mercy toward animals. She warned that removing dogs is unscientific and counterproductive, as it often allows "more ferocious" animals to occupy the vacated territory—comparing it to how dengue emerged after malaria was tackled.

She urged strict adherence to the ABC Rules, noting that mass removal from institutions is ineffective. Highlighting a major implementation gap, she pointed out that local authorities are failing their mandatory duty to collaborate under Rule 10, with only 76 ABC centres currently certified nationwide.

"Who should be made responsible where a 9-year old child is killed by dogs who are being fed by a particular organization? Should the organisation not be made liable for damages?" Justice Mehta remarked. 

Advocate Anil Msihra appeared on behalf of Musician Mohit Chauhan in an application. He submitted that Chauhan is itself a dog-feeder and dogs are considered as community animals. He said that the spirit of the ABC Rules is the compassionate management of community animals. The submission highlighted that in many foreign jurisdictions, individual caregivers and dog feeders are legally recognized as essential partners to local authorities.

He made a specific plea for the formal recognition of individual feeders in India, arguing that giving these citizens responsibility and a defined role would bridge the gap between community care and state-led sterilization efforts.

Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar appeared for an 80-year old lady who lives on the street and takes care of around 200 dogs. He submitted that a policy for adoption may be considered. He submitted that the entire case is about the 'Indies', who are the native breeds of the land. 

To the arguments of Gaggar, Justice Mehta remarked, "Are you for real? A young counsel just showed us adoption of orphan children on the streets. Perhaps some lawyers could argue for adoption of those children. Since 2011, when I was elevated, this is probably the longest argument we have heard. No one has argued for human beings so compassionately."

Accordingly, the matter is now listed for further hearing on January 20, 2026.

Arguments advanced on January 9, 2026

Previously, the Court highlighted the fact that a dog can always smell a human who is afraid and will always attack, noting that even a pet animal is capable of such unpredictable behaviour.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat submitted that the current crisis is a result of the State’s failure to fulfil its statutory duty to balance public safety with animal welfare, acknowledging that stray dogs have become a significant menace.

He proposed a formal zoning of public spaces, arguing that certain high-sensitivity areas like schools must be kept entirely free of stray dogs. Farasat further recommended the establishment of mandatory feeding protocols to identify designated feeders and specific timings, ensuring these activities are moved away from public footpaths to minimise human-animal conflict.

Addressing the logistical hurdles, Farasat urged the Court to mandate a time-bound implementation of ABC Rules, noting that the State cannot legally jettison these regulations despite a reported resource crunch. He suggested that the Court direct States to identify and bridge their funding gaps, emphasizing that State governments and municipal corporations must collaborate by leveraging the State’s superior veterinary machinery to support municipal responsibilities.

Finally, he requested that the Court clarify that any violation of these protocols would leave parties free to initiate legal action to ensure accountability.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan proposed the introduction of portable animal birth control units to bypass the current shortage of stationary ABC centres. She explained that these mobile units would allow for on-site procedures where animals are placed under general anaesthesia, monitored until recovery, and immediately released back into their original territory. This model aims to significantly increase the speed of sterilization, which is currently being impeded by limited physical infrastructure.

Counsel appearing for applicant Sharmila Tagore submitted that society cannot adopt a "one-size-fits-all" approach to removing all dogs from the streets, arguing that the solution must be rooted in both science and psychology. 

It was specifically highlighted that aggressive dogs can often be successfully reintegrated into society following professional psychological treatment; however, in cases where aggression is repeated, the dog must be formally identified as "aggressive" by the local monitoring committee to determine further action.

He said, "Let’s see aggressive dogs vs normal dogs. There was a dog named Goldie in AIIMS, she’s there since many years."

Justice Mehta said, "Was she being taken to the hospital theatre also? Counsel any dog who is on the street is bound to have ticks, and a dog with ticks in the hospital! What disastrous consequences would fall? Do you understand?...even the slightest suggestion that dogs are allowed in the hospital...Don't try to glorify this."

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar informed the Court that he has filed a writ petition regarding the article which was published in The Times of India titled "On the roof of the world, feral dogs huntdown Ladakh’s Rare species".

Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina, representing an animal welfare organization, submitted that while the goal is to minimize the stray dog population, the solution must be both legal and scientific. Legally, the focus should be on the rigorous enforcement of ABC Rules, while scientifically, he cautioned against mass removal, noting that it often triggers a population increase due to the "vacuum effect."

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for "All Creatures Great and Small" (ACGS), argued that the issue has evolved from a simple human-animal conflict into a matter of significant constitutional principle.

He submitted that the ABC Rules constitute a "complete fasciculus" and a "seamless web" of regulations that fully occupy the legal field. Singhvi contended that judicial intervention is only appropriate in the presence of a "legislative vacuum," and since the legislature has intentionally established these rules, the Court must respect those boundaries rather than intervening where no gap exists.

He further emphasized that even when the Court is motivated by good intentions, it remains bound by legislative intent and constitutional restraints. Responding to the Bench's remark that they might be "helpless" in the face of existing laws, Singhvi affirmed that the Court's primary obligation is to enforce rights where legislation is absent, rather than overriding clear statutory provisions already in place.

He argued that while an Amicus Curiae provides legal guidance, they are not "domain experts" in animal behavior or ecology. Drawing a parallel to the recent Aravalli judgment, Singhvi noted that the Court previously had to reconsider an order because the committee involved was dominated by generalist bureaucrats rather than specialists. He urged the Bench to include genuine domain experts to ensure any final orders are scientifically sound and of high quality.

Arguments advanced on January 7, 2026

One Counsel argued that a clear distinction must be made between pet dogs and strays, noting that untrained stray dogs can constitute a public nuisance or "mischief" for non-dog lovers. Emphasizing the territorial nature of dogs, Counsel explained that poorly placed feeding spots force dogs to transgress territories, leading to inter-dog conflict and increased aggression in residential areas.

It was further submitted that while the State has a duty to vaccinate, it is not the "owner" of these dogs, and statutory rules must be interpreted so as not to infringe upon a citizen’s right to safe passage without annoyance under Section 270 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The submission clarified that while the intent is not to eliminate dogs, the law must prioritize the "right to access" one's home safely over the "right to roam" of strays. Counsel proposed the creation of temporary "safe havens" or shelters as an immediate solution, arguing that public safety cannot be compromised simply because the unpredictable temperament of a stray dog is impossible to guarantee.

Justice Nath remarked, “A dog can always smell a human who is afraid of dogs, and he will always attack, even so your pet will do it.”

The Counsel referred to a case where a leashed pet dog attacked a woman.

Justice Mehta remarked, “Not even intentionally, unintentionally, a pet dog goes and attacks a neighbour. That is an offence.”

Senior Advocate CU Singh resumed his arguments. Singh said, “Apart from the vacuum effect etc mentioned yesterday, there is also a rodent menace. There’s also a problem of monkeys in institutional areas. We have annexed studies. When there is an abrupt removal of dogs, rodent populations shoot up leading to unintended consequences. There has to be a balance. Your lordships know what happened in Surat 20-30 years ago.”

Justice Mehta remarked, “Is there a correlation? In a lighter vein. Dogs and cats are enemies; cats kill rodents, so we should promote more cats and lesser dogs…we have never directed the removal of every dog from the street…tell us how many dogs each hospital should have? Roaming around in the patient’s beds, in the corridors.”

Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal argued that the financial burden of managing the stray population presents a significant conflict of interest, questioning whether an estimated ₹26,800 crore should be prioritized for housing humans rather than animals. It was submitted that a mass relocation would necessitate the construction of 91,800 new shelters, yet no specific budgetary allocations have been made by either the Central or State governments to implement the November 7 order or the ABC Rules 2023.

To address this, Counsel proposed a 60:40 budget-sharing model between the Centre and States, supported by an institutional fund management mechanism similar to the SNA-SPARSH model. Additionally, Venugopal argued that while dogs have no place in hospital wards, the crisis persists due to a complete lack of "statutory will" and highlighted that the Animal Welfare Board of India’s current SOPs actually stand in violation of their own rules.

Senior Advocate Venugopal proposed a comprehensive roadmap for tackling the stray dog crisis, emphasizing that the primary hurdle is a total lack of budgetary allocation for the implementation of statutory rules. He estimated that establishing a dedicated Animal Birth Control (ABC) centre in every district would cost approximately 1,600 crore, a task that requires the coordinated efforts of five different Union Ministries. To streamline this, he suggested the designation of a single nodal agency with performance-linked triggers and a mandate for building district-level infrastructure. Highlighting the scale of the challenge, Venugopal noted that there are currently only 66 accredited ABC centres to manage a population of 5.2 crore dogs, necessitating a massive scale-up of existing facilities.

Furthermore, he stressed the urgent need for a specialized and trained workforce, noting that while private sterilization costs can exceed 10,000 per dog, a mass-scale government initiative is the only viable path. He pointed out the acute shortage of training facilities, mentioning that the only existing center in Lucknow could be utilized to train others through 15-day specialized courses. Drawing a parallel to the government’s unified response during the COVID-19 pandemic, Venugopal argued that a similar level of inter-state and inter-ministerial cooperation is essential to resolve the stray dog menace effectively.

He further suggested that the CSR funds may be utilized for animal birth control for dogs.

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared for the petitioner in an SLP assailing the judgment by the Delhi High Court. He submitted that a writ petition was initially filed before the High Court due to the local authorities' persistent failure to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. In response, the High Court had sought a detailed status report and issued specific directions to the authorities, mandating strict adherence to the statutory rules to manage the stray dog population effectively.

He submitted that the current statutory framework dictates that stray dogs cannot be captured unless adequate housing capacity is first ensured, as there is no provision for where to keep them once they are removed. He argued that without an accurate census of the dog population, authorities lack the necessary data to determine the required shelter capacity or the extent of existing infrastructure and human resources within municipal bodies. Consequently, Mehta suggested that the Court's previous directions should be kept in abeyance until this relevant data is collected and analyzed, ensuring that any removal mandate is backed by the practical means to support it.

Senior Advocate Gopal Shanakarnarayan appeared in an application. He said that his fundamental argument is that the ABC Rules must be followed. Rule 2 of the ABC Rules provides a module dealing with problems of stray dogs, which must be followed. Secondly, he suggested the regulation of the institutions. He referred to an SOP by the animal welfare board which deals with shelter for dogs, identification of the institution and respective nodal officers, setting up of fencing 6 feet tall, and lastly, sterilisation.

“Identification of this should have been the first step, you make a census of the dogs…it has to be the first step…One State which seems to have a lot of data in place is the State of Karnataka,” he said.

Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan urged the Court to constitute an expert committee comprising ministry officials, veterinary associations, and NGOs to develop a humane, data-driven strategy. Arguing against harsh or reactionary measures, he cited scientific studies that emphasize returning dogs to their original territories to maintain social stability and prevent a "territorial vacuum."

Dewan pointed out that state affidavits reveal a widespread lack of infrastructure, suggesting that the Court's removal orders be stayed until proper facilities and a comprehensive dog census are in place. He also proposed the use of inexpensive technology, such as microchipping and geotagging, to track and manage the population effectively. Concluding his submissions, he provided the Bench with a tabulated chart detailing the specific data states must collect to build a viable national framework.

Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan, appearing for PETA, India, referred to the Great Indian Bustard judgment.

Justice Mehta said, “Mr Diwan, that judgment was in connection with an animal which was facing extinction, the rare category. That kind of analogy cannot be drawn.”

He argued that educational institutions, despite being large campuses, are subject to Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, which mandates releasing dogs back into their original territories. It was submitted that removing dogs could lead to ecological imbalances, such as an increase in rodent populations. Counsel warned that detaining dogs beyond the standard four-day recovery period in confined spaces could constitute animal cruelty and suggested that capture operations be staggered until local monitoring committees confirm that adequate infrastructure is available for humane recovery.

Additionally, the submission supported the removal of burdensome deposit requirements for animal welfare and recommended the implementation of micro-chipping as a proven, effective method for management.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, seeking the recall of orders and directions of the order dated November 7, 2025 and challenging the SOP, appearing for Humane World for Animals in India, submitted

“Now, today once the rules existed, should the court override the rules because there is no legislative vacuum?”, he said.

Counsel for the students of Campus Law Centre, Law Faculty, Delhi University said that they have done a census for stray dogs, which is 49 in number, out of which 28 have been sterilized and brought back to the same place.

Justice Nath, “So in this year the population has increased or it has remained 49?”

The Counsel submitted, “It has remained to 49…Now in the campus law centre, we have had not one dog biting incidents in the last ten years. In the arts faculty, there is one dog that bites…We do have a controlled situation in these parts of Delhi University…It has been brought again and again that the municipal authorities have really not achieved anything.”

Justice Nath said, “They have not done anything.”

The Counsel suggested in the interregnum that the Court may consider asking institutions to set up animal law cells, sterilise and vaccinate dogs on their own.