Holding

The prohibition on releasing sterilised stray dogs is held to be in abeyance; such dogs must be released back to the same locality, except rabies‑infected or aggressive dogs, which shall be kept in separate shelters.

Summary

The Supreme Court, acting suo moto, took cognizance of a news report of a child’s death from a stray dog bite in Delhi and issued directions to pick up, sterilise, deworm and vaccinate stray dogs across the National Capital Region, initially prohibiting their release back onto the streets. Several NGOs and individuals challenged these directions, arguing they conflicted with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 which mandate release of sterilised dogs to the same locality, and raised concerns about feasibility, freedom of expression and potential culling of dogs. The Court examined the public‑health imperative of protecting citizens under Article 21 against the statutory framework and constitutional rights. It modified the earlier order, allowing sterilised dogs to be released back to their original areas except those infected with rabies or displaying aggression, which must be kept in separate shelters. Additional directions were issued for creating dedicated feeding spaces, a helpline, deposit of funds by dog lovers/NGOs, an adoption scheme, and a requirement for municipal authorities to file affidavits of compliance, with the matter expanded to all states and union territories.

Issues considered

The validity of the Court's direction prohibiting release of sterilised stray dogs in light of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
Whether the directions infringe the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19.
The feasibility and logistical practicality of the Court's directives for mass capture and sheltering of stray dogs.
The appropriate balance between public safety (right to life) and animal welfare statutes.

Legislation cited

Animal Birth Control Ruless. Rule 11(19)
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

Headnote

Issue for Consideration The issue involved in these petitions centres around the right of the stray dogs to live on the streets, vis-à-vis, the safety and security of the citizens particularly the kids and elderly people from these very stray dogs, many of whom are suspected to communicable disease, i.e., rabies. Earlier, the Two Judges Bench of this Court issued directions on 11.08.2025 considering the disturbing pattern of dog bites in the country. Headnotes† Directions by the Supreme Court – Menace of dog bites – Mollification of the directions

Subjects

Dog bitesPicking up of stray dogsDog sheltersImmunization of stray dogsAdoption scheme for stray dogsVictim of dog biteDogs infected with rabiesFeeding spaces for the stray dogsProsecution for obstructing the public servantVeterinariansDog catching personnel

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1861 : 2025 INSC 1018

In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”
(Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025)
22 August 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The issue involved in these petitions centres around the right of the
stray dogs to live on the streets, vis-à-vis, the safety and security
of the citizens particularly the kids and elderly people from these
very stray dogs, many of whom are suspected to be infected with
the communicable disease, i.e., rabies. Earlier, the Two Judges
Bench of this Court issued directions on 11.08.2025 considering
the disturbing pattern of dog bites in the country.

Headnotes†
Directions by the Supreme Court – Menace of dog bites –
Mollification of the directions issued vide order dated
11.08.2025:
Held: a) Municipal authorities shall continue to comply with the
directions contained in paras 12(i) and 12(ii) of the subject order;
b) The directions contained in paras 12(iii) and 12(iv), to the extent
that they prohibit the release of the picked up strays, to be kept in
abeyance for the time being – The dogs that are picked up shall be
sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated, and released back to the same
area from which they were picked up – However, this relocation
shall not apply to the dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be
infected with rabies, and those that display aggressive behaviour;
c) The directions contained in para 12(v) shall remain subject to
the directions given in paras (a) and (b); d) Municipal authorities
directed to commence an exercise for creating dedicated feeding
spaces for the stray dogs in each municipal ward – Feeding of dogs
on streets impermissible; e) Each municipal authority shall create a
dedicated helpline number for reporting incidents of violation of the
above directions – On such a report being received, appropriate
measures shall be taken against the individuals/NGOs concerned;
f) The direction given in para 13 of the order dated 11.08.2025, is
reiterated with a slight modification that in case any public servant
acting in compliance with the aforesaid directions is obstructed, then
the violator/s shall be liable to face prosecution for obstructing the
public servant acting in discharge of official duty; g) Each individual
1862 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

dog lover and each NGO that has approached this Court shall
deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, respectively, with
the Registry of this Court, failing which they shall not be allowed to
appear in the matter any further – The amounts so deposited shall
be utilised in the creation of the infrastructure and facilities for the
stray dogs under the aegis of the respective municipal bodies; h)
The desirous animal lover/s are free to move the application to the
concerned municipal body for adoption of the street dogs; i) The
municipal authorities directed to file an affidavit of compliance with
complete statistics of resources, viz., dog pounds, veterinarians, dog
catching personnel, specially modified vehicles/cages available as
on date for the purpose of compliance of the ABC Rules. [Para 33]

Case Law Cited
Conference for Human Rights (India) (Regd.) v. Union of India and
Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14763 of 2024; Reema
Shah v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 17623 of 2025 – referred to.

List of Websites
Koushiki Saha, “Delhi hounded by strays, kids pay price: Girl (6)
dies of rabies after dog attack, family alleges official apathy”, (Time
of India, 28 July, 2025) can be accessed here < https://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-hounded-bystrays-kids-pay-price-
girl-6-dies-of-rabies-after-dog-attack-family-allegesofficial-apathy/
articleshow/122938488.cms>

List of Acts
Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.

List of Keywords
Dog bites; Picking up of stray dogs; Dog shelters; Immunization
of stray dogs; Adoption scheme for stray dogs; Victim of dog bite;
Dogs infected with rabies; Feeding spaces for the stray dogs;
Prosecution for obstructing the public servant; Veterinarians; Dog
catching personnel.

Case Arising From
INHERENT/CIVIL ORIGINAL/ EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE
JURISDICTION: Suo Moto Writ Petition(Civil) No. 5 of 2025
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1863

In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”

Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
With
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 784 of 2025, SLP (Civil) No. 14763 of 2024
and SLP (Civil) No. 17623 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Nanita Sharma, Vivek Sharma,
Mahesh Tiwari, Shailendra Singh, Ms. Padmini, Rohit Kumar, Ms.
Sabnam, Karl P.Rustomkhan, Parv Arora, Deepanshu Rana, Prince
Sugandh, Rahul Mohod, Raju Sonkar, Sanjay Gyan, Pradeep
Mohod, C.D. Goswami, Ms. Yogita Sunaria, Rajender Kumar, L.N.
Sharma, Sunil Prakash Sharma, Ajit Sharma, Kanchan Kumar,
Yuvraj Sinh C. Solanki, Anant Ram Mishra, Lareb Habib Ansari,
Vaibhav Mishra, Raghav Sood.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, ASG, Mukesh
Kumar Maroria, Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, Sidharth Luthra, Percival
Billimoria, Mahalaxshmi Pavani, Meneka Guruswamy, Dr. Abhishek
Manu Singhvi, Colin Gonsalves, Siddharth Dave, Nakul Dewan,
Krishnan Venugopal, Mrs. Garima Prashad, Ms. Manisha T. Karia,
Sr. Advs., Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Sourabh Malhotra, Siddhartha
Garg, Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Divyam Khera, Tushar Bathija, Ms.
Rachita Sood, Avinash Tripathi, Ms. Rupali Jain, Amit Bhandari,
Pritish Tekhandani, Parvesh A, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Satya Ojha, A
Chinni, Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Ms. Prerna Singh, Moksh P, Ms. Bharti
Tyagi, Ms. Gauri Puri, Rahul Kripalani, Abhik Chimni, Omar Hoda,
Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Ms. Sonali Chopra, Ms. Shreya Singhal, Bhargav
Ravindran Thali, Ms. Manjira, Ms. Supriya Juneja, K. Rustom
Khan, Parv Arora, Avishkar Singhvi, Avinash M., Labeeb Faroq,
Ms. Nandini Kaushik, Ms. Shaalini Agrawal, Siddharth Pandey, Ms.
Shalaka Patil, Amaan Rahman, Ms. Gahena Gambani, Ms. Ishika
Garg, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Deepti Rathi, Ms.
Kalra Sukhda Kishore, Ms. Shreya Gupta, Varun Khetwani, Ms.
Ananya Arora, Ms. Vaasyati Bezbaruah, Deepin Deepak Sahni,
Vishal Navale, Prashant Bhushan, Siddhartha K. Garg, Pranav
Sachdeva, Parth Semwal, Ms. Neha Rathi, Ms. Astha Sharma,
Ms. Mantika Haryani, Bhanu Mishra, Tanvir Nayar, Abhishek
Bakshi, Samar Khan, Ms. Gauri Puri, Shubhang Sharma, Ms.
Sonali Chopra, Yagyesh Kumar, Praveen Swarup, Ameet Siingh,
1864 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Rohit Swarup, Devesh Mauerya, Ravi Kumar, Ms. Archna Sharma,
Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Ms. Anjali Kumari, Deepak Yadav, Ms.
Swapnil Singh, Sanjeev Malhotra, Divyadeep Chaturvedi, Ms.
Yugandhara Khanwilkar, Ms. Namrata Shah, Sahil Bhalaik, Ms.
Purti Gupta, Udian Sharma, Sahil Saraswat, Ms. Harsha Sadhwani,
Vivek Sharma, Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

BY THE COURT

1. A Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court took suo moto cognizance
on 28th July 2025, of a news report published in The Times of India,
Delhi Edition, titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”.1
2. Pursuant to the taking of suo moto cognizance, the matter came
to be listed before the Bench on 11th August 2025, on which, the
following directions were issued: -
“12. For the present, the aforesaid directions shall be
complied with and implemented scrupulously. We, at the
cost of repetition, again make it abundantly clear to the
above concerned authorities in clear words that it shall
at the earliest: -
(i) Start picking up and rounding the stray dogs from
all localities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, NOIDA, Faridabad,
Gurugram as well as areas on the outskirts, and
relocate these dogs into designated shelters/pounds.
(ii) The appropriate authorities of NCT of Delhi, NOIDA,
Ghaziabad, Gurugram & Faridabad are directed to
immediately create dog shelters/pounds and report
to this Court the creation of such infrastructure all
over the National Capital Region (NCR). A report in

1 Koushiki Saha, “Delhi hounded by strays, kids pay price: Girl (6) dies of rabies after dog attack, family
alleges official apathy”, (Time of India, 28 July, 2025) can be accessed here < https://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-hounded-by-strays-kids-pay-price-girl-6-dies-of-rabies-after-dog-attack-
family-alleges-official-apathy/articleshow/122938488.cms>
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1865

In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”

this regard shall be filed before this Court within a period
of eight-weeks.
(iii) In no circumstances, should these stray dogs after
their relocation be once again released back onto the
streets. In this regard proper records should be maintained
by the concerned authorities regularly.
(iv) The stray dogs shall be captured, sterilized,
dewormed and immunized as required by Animal Birth
Control Rules, 2023 and as noted above, shall not be
released back. The dog shelters/pounds should have
sufficient personnel to sterilize, deworm and immunize
stray dogs and also for looking after the stray dogs who
would be detained.
(v) We further make it clear that both the exercise
of rounding up of stray dogs as well as the creation
of necessary infrastructure in the form of shelters/
pounds for the relocation, sterilization, deworming
and immunization, shall be undertaken simultaneously.
We do not want to hear about even a semblance of
lethargy from the concerned authorities on the pre-text
of awaiting the creation of shelters/pounds, otherwise, we
will proceed to take strict action against these authorities.
All authorities are directed to immediately begin the
picking up stray dogs and in the same breadth creation
of appropriate and adequate shelter homes and pounds
across the National Capital Region.
13. Any hindrance or obstruction that may be caused
by any individual or organization in the smooth and
effective implementation of our aforesaid directions
will be viewed as contempt of this Court and we shall
proceed to take appropriate action in accordance with
law.”
(Emphasis supplied)

3. It may be noted that, in the intervening period, several interlocutory
applications for intervention came to be filed purportedly by individuals
1866 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and organisations working for the welfare of the stray dogs2, seeking a
stay on the directions contained in the order dated 11th August, 2025.
4. The issue involved in these petitions placed before the three-Judge
Bench centres around the right of the stray dogs to live on the
streets, vis-à-vis, the safety and security of the citizens particularly
the kids and elderly people from these very stray dogs, many of
whom are suspected to be infected with the communicable disease,
i.e., rabies. It is indisputable that human beings bitten by rabid dogs
suffer indescribably, and many times, the infection proves to be fatal.
5. For better understanding, a brief description of the issues raised
in the other petitions apart from the Suo Moto Writ Petition listed
before us is necessary.
6. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14763 of 20243 lays a challenge to
the order dated 18th August, 2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi,
wherein the Division Bench expressed its satisfaction over the task
of sterilisation and immunisation of street dogs being undertaken by
the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (‘GNCTD’) and
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’). Being dissatisfied with the
aforesaid order, the Conference for Human Rights (India) (Regd.),
a non-governmental organisation, has filed the aforesaid special
leave petition.
7. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17623 of 20254 arises from the
judgment dated 3rd March, 2025 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was dealing with the Writ
Petition5 filed by a resident of NOIDA, District Gautam Buddha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh, who was aggrieved by the harassment faced during
the feeding of the community dogs. The Division Bench observed that
the concerns raised in the petition were regulated by the Animal Birth
Control Rules, 20236, which provide for capturing, sterilisation, and
immunisation of street dogs as well as the measures to be taken for

2 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘animal lovers’.
3 Titled as ‘Conference for Human Rights (India) (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors.’
4 Titled as ‘Reema Shah v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’
5 WRIT-C No. 6572 of 2023.
6 Hereinafter, referred to as “ABC Rules.”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1867

In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”

the feeding of the community dogs. The Division Bench closed the
writ petition, with a direction to the concerned authorities to ensure
that necessary steps are taken in public interest to subserve the
cause raised therein, and while doing so, the interest of the common
man in moving on the streets must also be factored in.
8. While the aforesaid special leave petitions were pending before this
Court, the mandatory directions in the terms indicated above came
to be passed in the Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025.
9. Various Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and individuals,
stating to be animal lovers, claim to be aggrieved by the mandatory
directions issued vide order dated 11th August, 2025. They sought
the intervention of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on the premise
that the said directions are in conflict with the mandate of the ABC
Rules and are also impossible to comply with. One such individual
has filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 784 of 2025, seeking a direction
that the status quo should be maintained during the pendency of
the said writ petition.
10. Under the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, all these
matters have been clubbed and listed before the three-Judge Bench
to consider the prayer for staying the mandatory directions passed
by this Court vide order dated 11th August, 2025 and to deal with the
concerns which have been raised by animal lovers and to test the
feasibility of implementation of the aforesaid directions in practice.
11. It has been vehemently and fervently urged ‘Una Voce’ by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the self-acclaimed animal lovers
and the NGOs (applicants before this Court), that the direction not
to release the stray dogs to the original locations from where they
would be picked up, after their sterilisation and immunisation, is in
clear violation of Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules framed under the
provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It was
submitted that, under the said Rule, the concerned authorities are
mandated to sterilise and immunise the stray dogs and to release
them in the same area from which they were picked up.
12. It was further submitted that under the garb of order dated 11th August,
2025, the municipal authorities have already started rounding up the
stray dogs. Not only this, the animal lovers, who feed the stray dogs,
are being harassed and threatened with prosecution.
1868 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

13. It was strenuously submitted that the direction to initiate contempt
proceedings against the animal lovers amounts to a direct
encroachment upon the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Expression
guaranteed to the citizens under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
14. It was further submitted that there is an imminent risk that the stray
dogs who are being picked up in compliance with this Court’s order
may be culled because the municipal authorities are not seized of
the logistic capability and wherewithal to create the large number
of dog shelters/pounds, which would be required to cater lakhs of
stray dogs estimated to be present on the streets of New Delhi and
NCR region. Since the municipal authorities do not have the required
capacity, there is a looming possibility that the stray dogs, after being
picked up, would be eliminated so as to show compliance of the
order dated 11th August, 2025. It was also submitted that almost 700
stray dogs have already been picked up, and there is no information
as to the fate of the said stray dogs. They apprehend that a large
population of stray dogs, which might also include newborn puppies,
is likely to be affected and may lose their lives if the directions given
by this Court are not stayed.
15. Per contra, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India,
appearing for the GNCTD urged that the municipal authorities and
the State authorities are taking all measures to curb the instances
of dog bites and to vaccinate the rabies infected dogs but the task
is herculean and almost impossible considering the huge population
of stray dogs on the streets of Delhi and NCR region. However, Shri
Mehta urged that GNCTD is keen to comply with the order dated
11th August, 2025, so that the threat faced by the human population
from the rabid and aggressive stray dog population on the streets
can be addressed.
16. Shri Mehta referred to certain newspaper reports which estimate that
approximately 37,15,713 dog bites occurred in India in 2024, and
in several cases, human lives were lost due to trauma and rabies
infection. The reports mention that the presence of aggressive stray
dogs on streets is causing grave risk to the lives of children and
elderly people, as well as other vulnerable sections of society. They
are unable to access streets and parks because of the fear of being
attacked and bitten by the rabies-infected stray dogs.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1869

In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”

17. Learned Solicitor General, further submitted that sterilisation alone
is insufficient, as it can neither prevent attacks from stray dogs
nor can it prevent the rabies infection by dog bites because the
immunised dogs with aggressive behaviour would still be capable
of attacking and causing severe harm to the vulnerable citizens,
if these animals are allowed to remain on the streets. He further
submitted that the directions given by this Court in Suo Moto Writ
Petition do not impinge upon the statutory framework but rather
operate as interim measures essentially required to protect the
Right to Life of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
18. Shri Mehta submitted that, for the time being, and till the population
of stray dogs on the streets is brought under control, the directions
issued by this Court vide order dated 11th August 2025, should
be allowed to remain in force. Tapering down of these measures
can be considered once the statistics pertaining to the procedure
of sterilisation and immunisation undertaken in compliance with
the mandatory directions are placed on record and the situation
improves.

19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at Bar and have gone through the order dated 11th August,
2025.

20. Let notice be issued in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 784 of 2025 and
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17623 of 2025.

21. We shall now proceed to consider as to whether the directions given
by a two-Judge Bench of this Court on 11th August, 2025 (supra) in
the Suo Moto Writ Petition require any clarification/modification or
whether the authorities concerned including the Government of NCT
of Delhi, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the New Delhi Municipal
Council and the civic bodies of NOIDA, Ghaziabad, Faridabad and
Gurugram should be mandated to expeditiously comply with the
directions contained in the said order.

22. Suo moto cognizance was taken by the two-Judge Bench of this
Court vide order dated 28th July, 2025 and on the very next listing,
i.e., on 11th August, 2025, the mandatory directions (supra) were
issued to the concerned authorities.
1870 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

23. We make it clear that there is not even the slightest doubt in our
minds that the intent behind the order is salutary inasmuch as it
works towards protecting the citizens at large from the attacks by
the aggressive and rabid stray dogs. However, there are certain vital
factors that call for a balancing exercise so that the order dated 11th
August, 2025, can be taken to its logical conclusion while keeping
its ambit within the contour of the legal framework, i.e., the ABC
Rules, 2023.

24. The two-Judge Bench in para 12(iii) and 12(iv) of its order has
directed that the stray dogs shall be captured, sterilised, dewormed,
and immunised as per the ABC Rules, but “they shall in no
circumstance be released back onto the streets.” There is a further
mandate in the order that all the rounded-up stray dogs shall be kept
in the shelters/pounds without there being any scope for release.

25. The framework of the ABC Rules, to be specific, Rule 11(19) clearly
provides that once the stray dogs have been sterilised, inoculated,
and dewormed, they have to be released back in the same locality
from which they were picked up.

26. The directions given in paras 12(iii) and 12(iv) are for ensuring that
the same number of stray dogs does not land back on the streets
as were picked up for sterilisation and immunisation, as this would
literally become a vicious circle.

27. Nonetheless, one cannot be ignorant of the fact that the mandate
to keep all the stray dogs, picked up from Delhi and the adjoining
NCR cities, in the municipal shelters/pounds would require logistics
of gargantuan proportions including manpower, shelters/pounds,
veterinarians, cages and specially modified vehicles for transportation
of the captured stray dogs.

28. The provision in Rule 11(19) that the dogs, upon sterilisation and
immunisation, should be relocated to the same locality from which
they have been picked up, is scientifically carved out inasmuch
as it serves two purposes. Firstly, the same prevents the scope of
overcrowding in the dog shelters/pounds, and secondly, the picked-
up stray dogs after immunisation and sterilisation are relocated to
the same environment where they were living earlier, which is a
compassionate treatment.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1871

In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”

29. The aggressive sterilisation would definitely put a curb on the rapid
growth of the stray dog population, ultimately leading to its reduction.
However, this is possible only in an idealistic situation, which seems
unlikely in the present scenario.

30. It was argued by some of the counsels appearing for the animal lovers
that the process of sterilisation and inoculation has worked wonders
in many towns across the country and has significantly brought down
the population of stray dogs. To be specific, it was pointed out that
towns like Dehradun and Lucknow, which have taken aggressive
measures for sterilisation, etc., as per the ABC Rules, have seen
a steady decline in the population of stray dogs. A suggestion has
also been received that chemical castration is a safe, painless, and
effective mode of sterilisation.
31. Thus, the direction given in the order dated 11 th August, 2025,
prohibiting the release of the treated and vaccinated dogs seems
to be too harsh, in our opinion.
32. It cannot be gainsaid that before any direction for impounding the
entire stray dog population is given, it would be necessary to have
a look at the existing infrastructure and human resources available
with the municipal bodies. A blanket direction to pick up all the
strays and place them in dog shelters/pounds without evaluating
the existing infrastructure may lead to a catch-22 situation because
such directions may be impossible to comply with.
33. We, therefore, feel that a holistic approach requires mollification
of the directions issued vide order dated 11 th August, 2025.
Accordingly, the directions issued by the two-Judge bench of
this Court are supplemented, modified, and clarified in the terms
indicated below: -
a. Municipal authorities shall continue to comply with the directions
contained in paras 12(i) and 12(ii) of the subject order.
b. The directions contained in paras 12(iii) and 12(iv), to the extent
that they prohibit the release of the picked up strays, shall be
kept in abeyance for the time being. The dogs that are picked
up shall be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated, and released back
to the same area from which they were picked up.
1872 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

It is, however, clarified that this relocation shall not apply to
the dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with
rabies, and those that display aggressive behaviour. Such dogs
shall be sterilised and immunised, but under no circumstances
should they be released back onto the streets. Furthermore,
as far as possible, such stray dogs shall be kept in a separate
pound/shelter after sterilisation and immunisation.

c. The directions contained in para 12(v) shall remain subject to
the directions given by us in paras (a) and (b).

d. Municipal authorities shall forthwith commence an exercise for
creating dedicated feeding spaces for the stray dogs in each
municipal ward. The feeding areas shall be created/identified
keeping in view the population and concentration of stray dogs
in the particular municipal ward. Gantries/notice boards shall
be placed near such designated feeding areas, mentioning that
stray dogs shall only be fed in such areas. Under no condition
shall the feeding of stray dogs on the streets be permitted. The
persons found feeding the dogs on the streets in contravention
of the above directions shall be liable to be proceeded against
under the relevant legal framework.

The aforesaid directions are being issued in view of the reports
regarding untoward incidents caused by unregulated feeding of
stray dogs and to ensure that the practice of feeding dogs on
roads and in public places is eliminated, as the said practice
creates great difficulties for the common man walking on the
streets.

e. Each municipal authority shall create a dedicated helpline
number for reporting incidents of violation of the above directions.
On such a report being received, appropriate measures shall
be taken against the individuals/NGOs concerned.

f. The direction given in para 13 of the order dated 11th August
2025, is reiterated with a slight modification that no individual
or organisation shall cause any hindrance or obstruction in
the effective implementation of the directions given above. In
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1873

In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”

case any public servant acting in compliance with the aforesaid
directions is obstructed, then the violator/s shall be liable to
face prosecution for obstructing the public servant acting in
discharge of official duty.

g. Each individual dog lover and each NGO that has approached
this Court shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-,
respectively, with the Registry of this Court within a period of 7
days, failing which they shall not be allowed to appear in the
matter any further. The amounts so deposited shall be utilised
in the creation of the infrastructure and facilities for the stray
dogs under the aegis of the respective municipal bodies.

h. The desirous animal lover/s shall be free to move the application
to the concerned municipal body for adoption of the street
dogs, upon which the identified/selected street dog/s shall be
tagged and given in adoption to the applicant. It shall be the
responsibility of the applicant(s) to ensure that the adopted
stray dogs do not return to the streets.

i. The municipal authorities shall file an affidavit of compliance with
complete statistics of resources, viz., dog pounds, veterinarians,
dog catching personnel, specially modified vehicles/cages
available as on date for the purpose of compliance of the ABC
Rules.

34. Since the application of the ABC Rules is uniform all over the country
and the same issues which have been taken up in the Suo Moto
Writ Petition have either cropped up or are likely to exist in every
State, we propose to expand the scope of this matter beyond the
confines of New Delhi and the NCR region.

35. For this purpose, we hereby direct the impleadment of all States and
Union Territories in this matter through the Secretaries concerned of
the Animal Husbandry Department, Secretaries of the local bodies
(Municipal Corporation, Municipal Councils, Municipalities, etc.) and
the Administrators of the Union Territories so as to seek information
from each authority regarding the steps being taken for compliance
of the ABC Rules in their respective jurisdictions.
1874 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

36. We are also informed that numerous writ petitions/suo moto petitions
are pending in various High Courts, more or less dealing with common
issues. Hence, the Registry shall seek information about such pending
writ petitions from the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts, and
thereafter, these writ petitions shall stand transferred to this Court
for analogous consideration along with the main matter.

37. List the matters after eight weeks for further directions and for
receiving the compliance report.

Result of the case: Directions issued.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan