People dying due to stray dog attacks, rules poorly enforced: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court flagged rising stray dog attacks and road accidents, blamed civic bodies for poor enforcement of animal birth control (ABC) rules

The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concern over the growing number of dog bite incidents across the country. The court criticised municipal bodies and local authorities for failing to properly implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules, Bar and Bench reported.

 

A three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria was hearing a suo motu case related to stray dogs and other animals in public spaces. The hearing will continue on Thursday.

 

“We are conscious that these things are happening. Children, adults are getting bit, people are dying,” the court said.

 

The court noted that in the past 20 days, two such road accidents involved judges. “One of the judges is still suffering through spinal injuries. It’s a very serious issue,” the Bench observed.

 

 

Background: How the case gained attention

 

The issue drew nationwide attention last year when a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed Delhi’s municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs. The order triggered protests from animal rights activists. That direction was later changed by the present Bench, which ordered vaccination and release of sterilised dogs instead of keeping them permanently in shelters.

 

In November 2025, the Supreme Court directed state governments and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to remove stray animals from highways across the country.

 

It also ordered government and private schools, colleges and hospitals to fence their premises within eight weeks to prevent dog bite incidents.

 

The court had then clarified that stray dogs picked up from institutional areas should not be released back at the same place, as that would defeat the purpose of the directions.   

 

NHAI prepares SOP, states yet to comply

 

Amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal informed the court that the NHAI has prepared a standard operating procedure (SOP) to implement the court’s directions. “There’s 1,400 odd km of vulnerable stretch. After detection, the NHAI says that the state government has to take care,” Agarwal said.

 

The Bench said the NHAI itself could fence or cordon off roads where needed.

 

The court was told that major states such as Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Punjab are yet to file compliance affidavits.

 

Response must be scientific, says Sibal

 

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for an animal rights litigant, said society must act responsibly.

 

“We are here as dog lovers. If one tiger is a man eater we don’t kill all tigers. We must make sure that sterilisation takes place, the population must come down. There is a process for that. It’s called the CSVR model accepted throughout the world. It’s called capture, sterilise, vaccinate, release...,” Sibal said.

 

When Sibal said he had never been bitten while visiting places like temples, the court responded: “You are lucky. People are being bitten, children are being bitten.”

 

Sibal replied, “We have to live with the animals. If we encroach into their space, they will bite.”

 

During the arguments, the Bench said that animals on roads are causing serious accidents. “While they are running on the road it is a problem. Roads where there are moving vehicles. It’s just not biting,” it said.

 

When Sibal argued that dogs usually stay inside compounds, the court responded sharply: “Are you serious? Your information seems to be outdated. Prevention is always better than cure. The roads have to be cleared and cleaned of dogs. They might not bite but they still cause accidents.”   

 

Debate over removal from institutional areas

 

Sibal argued that removing dogs from their existing areas would not solve the problem. “People feed dogs in the place that they are. They won’t go to shelter homes. Removal won’t work,” he said.

 

The court suggested that NGOs could feed dogs in shelters. Sibal reacted strongly: “If your lordships already have the solutions, there’s no need for me to argue.”

 

“We are not forcing you,” the court replied. Sibal later said he was only placing scientific material before the court and warned that unplanned removal would worsen the situation.