Supreme Court, Stray Dogs

The Supreme Court has observed that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to access public spaces without the constant apprehension of physical harm from stray dog attacks. 

The Court has dismissed all applications that sought a recall of its November 7 judgment. The Court robustly upheld the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), declaring that the framework remains legally binding and that challenges against it merit no acceptance.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta has observed, "The right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack or exposure to life-threatening events such as dog bites in public areas. The State cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate in the face of statutory mechanisms specifically designed to address them."


Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India along with ASG Aishwarya Bhati for Rajasthan, Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal and Senior Advocate CU Singh.

The Court had reserved the judgment on January 29, 2026. 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, the Court had also 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 Court has observed, "In this backdrop, it must be emphatically reiterated that the States and Union Territories are under a continuing and untrammeled constitutional obligation to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This obligation is not merely passive in nature but casts an affirmative duty upon the States and Union Territories to take all necessary and effective measures to prevent conditions that pose a threat to public safety, health and well-being. Such obligation necessarily extends to the creation, augmentation and sustained maintenance of adequate infrastructure for the effective implementation of the Animal Birth Control framework, including sterilisation, vaccination, sheltering and overall scientific management of stray dogs."

The Court said that the responsibility of the States and Union Territories, in this regard, cannot be diluted or deferred on the ground of administrative inconvenience, financial constraints or logistical challenges. These are matters that fall squarely within the domain of governance and prioritisation, and cannot be permitted to operate as constitutional alibis for executive paralysis in matters directly implicating human life and public safety.

"The constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India obligates the State to act with due diligence, foresight and urgency, and to ensure that statutory frameworks such as the Animal Birth Control framework are implemented in a manner that is both effective and responsive to ground realities. Financial limitations or logistical inconvenience can never furnish a valid defence where the continued failure of the State results in avoidable injury, trauma and loss of human life", it added.

It was also observed that while considerations pertaining to animal welfare and the protection of sentient beings constitute matters of undeniable constitutional, statutory and moral significance, such considerations cannot be permitted to eclipse or subordinate the paramount obligation of the State to safeguard human life, bodily integrity and public safety. 

The Court established that whenever a conflict arises between human safety and animal welfare, the legal balance must unequivocally favor the protection of human life. The Bench declared that the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution occupies the highest pedestal of legal protection, imposing a non-negotiable, affirmative duty on the State to deploy all necessary, preventive, and legally permissible measures to shield its citizens from the threat of stray dog attacks.

The Court emphasized that administrative apathy or hesitation in executing these safety protocols directly undermines this constitutional guarantee, reducing a citizen’s fundamental rights to a hollow illusion. Ultimately, the judgment clarifies that while compassion for animals is an important societal value, it cannot be interpreted or enforced in a manner that forces human beings to endure continuous threats to their basic safety, bodily integrity, and lives.

Furthermore, in a scathing assessment of administrative failure, the Court pointed out that despite the ABC framework being introduced over two decades ago (in 2001), there has been a "discernible absence of efforts" by States to expand infrastructure in proportion to the rising dog population. 

The Supreme Court’s final directives establish a robust four-pillar accountability framework to systematically resolve India's stray animal crisis by combining infrastructure expansion, public safety protocols, and strict legal liabilities. Under the first pillar of mandatory infrastructure, every state must set up at least one fully functional Animal Birth Control (ABC) centre per district, scaling up operations in high-density areas and extending safety guidelines to transit hubs and high-footfall public spaces.

To prevent the harassment of ground-level workers executing these drives, the second pillar grants an absolute legal shield to municipal, panchayat, and institutional officials, including school and hospital administrators, acting in good faith. The judgment explicitly bars the ordinary registration of FIRs, criminal complaints, or coercive actions against these public servants, empowering regional High Courts to summarily quash any frivolous or vexatious litigation aimed at them.

The third pillar tackles highway safety by mandating the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to deploy specialized transport vehicles for the swift removal and relocation of stray cattle from National Highways and Expressways. To make this sustainable, the NHAI must create a permanent coordination framework with village panchayats and local bodies to halt the abandonment of non-commercial livestock at its root.

Finally, under the fourth pillar of decentralized enforcement, the Supreme Court has officially transferred daily ground-level monitoring to the regional judiciaries to leverage their proximity to local conditions. All High Courts across India are directed to register a suo motu writ petition as a continuing mandamus to be monitored by a Division Bench. Under this strict judicial timeline, the Chief Secretaries of all States, alongside Union territory and NHAI representatives, must file comprehensive compliance affidavits before their respective High Courts on or before August 7.

The High Courts will then compile these findings into a consolidated ledger and submit it to the Supreme Court by November 17, with the warning that any continued administrative apathy or willful disregard of these timelines will immediately trigger personal disciplinary actions and formal contempt of court proceedings against the erring bureaucrats.

The Court directed, "In order to ensure uniformity, clarity and effective monitoring of compliance with the directions issued by this Court, all States and Union Territories are directed to furnish their compliance affidavits before the jurisdictional High Court in the prescribed format appended hereto as Annexure titled “Compliance Reporting Format (States/Union Territories)”, duly filled in with complete and accurate particulars, along with supporting material wherever necessary."

Accordingly, the matter is now listed for compliance on November 17, 2026.

Cause Title: In Re: City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 506]

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: