2026 INSC 506 | Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025
Supreme Court | Decided: 19.05.2026
FACTS
On July 26, 2025, a six-year-old girl died from rabies after being bitten by a dog. Her tragic death was reported in the Times of India, which led to a Suo motu cognizance taken by the Supreme Court on July 28, 2025. On August 11, 2025, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued an order mandating that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be gathered up and permanently kept in shelters. The Court also directed sterilization and vaccinations for the dogs for better safety. Many animal activists strongly opposed it.
This matter was transferred to a three-judge bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Vikram, and Justice N.V. Anjaria. On August 22, 2025, the bench observed that the ABC Rules are uniform nationwide, so the Court decided to expand the scope of the issue. The bench also changed the August 11 directions. It was ordered that, after sterilization and vaccination, the dogs must be released back to their original areas. Special feeding areas should be allotted for the stray dogs in every ward. It was supposed to be followed in every state and UT.
On November 7, 2025, the Court directed that the dogs be removed from highways and institutions across the nation, and fencing of educational and health sectors to avoid any issues. To challenge this order, many petitions were filed. In January 2026, the Court, observing the situation, ordered that it would ask for heavy compensation from the States for each dog-related incident. The verdict was reserved on January 29, 2025. The final judgement came in on May 19, 2026.
ISSUES RAISED
The following issues were discussed by the Bench:
- Whether the Court directives aligned with Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023, which mandates that sterilized and vaccinated dogs must be returned to their areas?
- Whether the directions of the Court and the menace of the stray dogs violate Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to all beings?
- Whether the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) is violated of those who tried to prevent the previous orders, as the Court had warned of contempt actions if done so?
- Whether the use of power under Article 142 by the Supreme Court to issue these orders was constitutionally valid?
CONTENTIONS
Contentions of the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the Court’s initial orders violated the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. Rule 11(19)[1] mandates that sterilized and vaccinated dogs must be returned. No court order can override it without changing the parent statute (the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960[2]). The petitioners also claimed that many feeders and activists were harassed during the protests, and it was a violation of their freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).[3]
The petitioners contested that animals should be considered as living beings and have dignity according to Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja.[4] They should not be treated as a nuisance. A few petitioners also argued that it was the state’s failure to balance public safety and animal welfare. They also stated that Article 142[5] cannot be used against existing legislation. The petitions argued for the freedom and the welfare of animals.
Contentions of the Respondents
The respondents argued for the safety of the public. The number of dog-bite incidents in recent years has increased, and this stray dog crisis is a violation of the right to life of the public. Over 3.7 million dog bites occurred in 2024, causing deaths, with over 25,000 in Delhi itself. These dogs, being aggressive, restricted many from public places, especially the elderly and children. They contested that dogs should be sheltered to prevent any further incidents as such. They also argued that the ABC Rules have failed in practice and need to be changed.
The decisions on the stay of dogs in gated communities should be taken by the residents’ welfare associations, which is something the respondents advocated for. If they do not wish for the dogs to stay, then they will decide on it. Another argument was the prohibition of stray dogs in medical, educational, and transport institutions for better safety. They also claimed liability for the incidents on the dog feeders. The respondent argued for the safety and welfare of the public.
RATIONALE
On May 19, 2026, the Supreme Court pronounced its verdict. It was a unanimous judgment given by Justice Sandeep Mehta. After analysing all the reports, affidavits, and arguments, the Court decided to modify and elaborate upon its earlier orders. The Court observed the threat imposed by the stray dogs and asked for their removal from both public roads, such as National Highways, and institutional sectors, such as hospitals, schools, universities, railway stations, airports, and bus stands, where the incidents of dog bites have increased with higher frequency. Two of the main questions the Court framed were the violation of Article 21[6] by the State’s failure to control the menace and the violation of the ABC Rules, 2023, by the Court’s previous order of removal of the dogs from public areas.
The Supreme Court held that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right of each person to access public places without any apprehension of stray dogs. The State’s failure to implement the ABC guidelines over two decades was seen as both administrative negligence and a constitutional breach, regardless of the State’s excuses. The Court upheld the ABC Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), declaring that the framework is legally binding. It has directed all states and UTs to take responsibility for public safety and the management of the stray dog menace.
It was also observed that while considerations about animal welfare constitute matters of constitutional and statutory significance, such considerations cannot be permitted to subordinate the obligation of the State to safeguard human life, bodily integrity, and public safety. On the challenge to the Court’s exercise of power under Article 142, the Court, relying on Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India,[7] held that the article can be used to supplement existing statute if it is silent in specific places, the Court may do complete justice.
The final directions upheld the November 7, 2025, order and the AWBI SOP. The Court ordered all the High Courts to register Suo motu writ petitions for compliance monitoring. It also directed the Chief Secretaries of all States and UTs to form compliance affidavits by August 7, 2026, and the Court would review them on November 17, 2026.
DEFECTS OF LAW
The judgment given by the Supreme Court, though essential, is not without its shortcomings. One of the main ones is the Court’s inability to reconcile between public safety and animal welfare. The Court said that the right to life and personal liberty of the people under Article 21 should not be compromised, but by the same logic, animals also have the right to life and liberty. The initial orders of the Court appeared to violate the principle. It subsequently changed the order, but the main question that remains unanswered is what the Court would do if a similar situation arises again. This risks a conflict with the statutory rules and constitutional duties.
Another is the failure to implement the laws. The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023,[8] which are necessary for animal welfare and public safety, have seen non-implementation by the concerned authorities. The justifications given by the authorities for such non-compliance cannot be accepted. Simultaneously, however, on the other side, the order to remove the dogs from educational, medical, and transport institutions cannot be done immediately, given the deficiencies in the existing municipal infrastructure. There would be a need to expand the shelter capacity and increase logistics for sterilization and vaccinations. The non-implementation remains on both ends of the equation, and there is a need to find a solution that is enforceable and constitutional in both ways.
INFERENCE
This case of In Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”[9] is a significant addition to the Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The Court has reaffirmed its commitment to protect the right to life and personal liberty of the public under Article 21, even in difficult circumstances. While many critics may contend that the Court subordinates animal welfare to human safety, the judgment shows a genuine attempt to balance both situations. The Court’s order to implement the ABC Rules, including the mandate to sterilize and vaccinate the dogs and then release them back, demonstrates that the Court has not disregarded animal welfare. The Court simply tried to safeguard public safety while stepping towards animal welfare.
The failure of the States to implement the rules shows that animal welfare has not been given the priority it deserves, even after several incidents have occurred. Dog bites and rabies deaths have become a significant public health concern recently, and subsequent apprehension of the harm is understandable. Hence, the authorities, not taking any steps to control the menace, show their abdication of statutory obligations. If the dogs are well taken care of as ordered, then the incidents and the apprehension would reduce, and the public would be able to move around freely and safely, while simultaneously securing animal rights. The authorities must understand the seriousness of the situation and take necessary steps to ensure public safety and animal welfare.
The Supreme Court has observed well and taken good measures, through this judgment, to safeguard both public safety and animal welfare, and ensured enforceability and constitutionality.
Tanvi Jain
Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University.
[1] Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, Rule 11(19) (India).
[2] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1960 (India).
[3] India Const. art. 19, § 1, cl. a.
[4] Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 (India).
[5] India Const. art. 142.
[6] India Const. art. 21.
[7] Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409 (India).
[9] In re “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price,” 2026 INSC 506 (India).