On 7 November22025, the Supreme Court delivered a comprehensive order in In Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 5 of 2025), extending its earlier interventions in the stray‑dog governance sphere to cover educational institutions, hospitals, transport hubs and highways.
Key Legal Findings
- Institutional‑area prohibition: The Court directed all States/UTs to forthwith remove stray dogs from premises of schools, hospitals, bus/rail stations, sports complexes and ensure relocation to designated shelters after sterilisation & vaccination, per the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2023. Crucially, dogs shall not be released back to the exact institutional location from which they were picked up.
- Broader scope: The order also covers the removal of stray cattle from highways and expressways—holding transport, road, and municipal authorities accountable under the same framework.
- Accountability mechanisms: The Court mandated the appointment of nodal officers for each identified institution, the fencing/boundary‑walling of premises, and held Chief Secretaries responsible for non-compliance.
- Legal tension with ABC Rules: The directive’s “no release back” clause (for institutional premises) marks a departure from the ABC Rules’ “sterilise‑vaccinate‑release to same locality” principle, raising questions of legal consistency with animal‑welfare jurisprudence.
Legal Significance
- Public safety vs. animal welfare: The Judgment reinforces the Court’s view that the right to a safe environment (under Art. 21) extends to children and citizens in institutional spaces, thereby justifying stricter regulation of stray‑animal presence.
- Shift in stray policy: From the earlier August 2025 order (which mandated return of sterilised dogs to the same locality), the 7 November 2025 judgment signals a more rigid stance—especially for high‑footfall public places—emphasising “liberating institutional areas” over community‑dog reintegration.
- Implementation challenges & jurisprudential gaps: While well-intentioned, the order invites scrutiny on practical feasibility (shelter capacity, infrastructure), and its divergence from existing ABC Rules may open litigation on whether relocation without release meets the statutory tests of humane treatment.
This judgment stands at the intersection of environmental law, constitutional rights, and animal-welfare regulation. It compels state machinery to adopt a dual track:
(a) rigorous sterilisation‑vaccination campaigns and
(b) institutional‑space exclusion zones for strays. Its full impact will hinge on whether states convert judicial directives into operational policy without compromising due process or animal welfare.