Supreme Court reserves verdict in stray dog matter

A bench of justice Vikram Nath, justice Sandeep Mehta and justice NV Anjaria reserved the verdict after hearing final submissions from various states, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). The court allowed parties to file brief written submissions within a week.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order in the suo motu proceedings on stray dog management across the country, in which it would also examine the correctness and continued operation of its November directions mandating the capture of stray dogs from institutional areas and prohibiting their release back into such premises even after sterilisation.

During Thursday’s hearing, the bench urged NHAI to explore technological solutions to address the problem of stray animals on highways (Hindustan Times)

A bench of justice Vikram Nath, justice Sandeep Mehta and justice NV Anjaria reserved the verdict after hearing final submissions from various states, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). The court allowed parties to file brief written submissions within a week.

The case, which has evolved into a nationwide audit of stray dog management, originated from rising incidents of dog bites, particularly involving children, in public and institutional spaces. Over the past year, the court has repeatedly flagged gaps in sterilisation, vaccination, shelter infrastructure and data accuracy across states.

During Thursday’s hearing, the bench urged NHAI to explore technological solutions to address the problem of stray animals on highways. Suggesting a public-facing reporting mechanism, the court asked why an application could not be developed to allow citizens to upload photographs and locations of stray animals spotted on highways.

“Why don’t you make an app so that anyone who spots an animal can click a picture and upload? You will have visuals,” said the bench. The NHAI counsel responded that the authority would do so.

Concerns were also raised over inconsistencies in data relating to animal birth control (ABC) programmes. Advocate Manisha Karia, appearing for AWBI, informed the court that while the board has recognised only 76 sterilisation centres across the country, data submitted by states claimed the existence of 883 such centres. “There are more than 250 pending applications. As per state data, 883 centres are running, but they have not yet been recognised by us,” Karia said.

This prompted the bench to question the activities occurring in unrecognised centres. Karia flagged anomalies in sterilisation figures submitted by some states, suggesting the numbers might not be reliable and raising concerns that funds earmarked for sterilisation were being misused. “There is surprising data. In states where the dog population is less, the reported sterilisation numbers are more than the total dog population,” she said.

“The reasons are obvious. Everyone is aware of it. How much grant is given,” remarked the court, with Karia adding, “Less said, the better.”

Directing AWBI to expedite scrutiny of pending applications, the court said all requests for recognition must be processed within a fixed timeframe, either by granting approval or rejecting them with reasons.

The court then reserved its order.

The proceedings come against the backdrop of a contentious order passed by the same bench in November last year, when it directed all states and UTs to remove stray dogs from institutional areas such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots and railway stations. The bench ruled that such dogs cannot be released back into these locations even after sterilisation.

Calling the spike in dog-bite incidents in public spaces a “matter of human safety concern”, the court had held that permitting re-release would “frustrate the very effect” of securing institutional premises. The bench described the situation as reflecting “systemic failure” and not merely isolated municipal lapses.

“The state and its instrumentalities bear an affirmative obligation to ensure that no citizen, least of all children, elderly people and patients, are exposed to preventable injury or disease within public premises,” the court had said, invoking Article 21 of the Constitution.

The November order significantly expanded an earlier August direction by a two-judge bench that had asked civic bodies in Delhi-NCR to round up stray dogs and keep them in shelters, effectively suspending the catch-neuter-vaccinate-release (CNVR) model in institutional areas. That order had triggered protests by animal rights groups and was later modified after the matter was placed before the present three-judge bench.

Under the November directions, states and UTs were asked to identify all government and private educational and health institutions, transport hubs and sports complexes, and secure their perimeters. The court also directed awareness programmes in schools, mandatory availability of anti-rabies vaccines in hospitals, and uniform SOPs to be framed by AWBI.

In parallel, the court had reiterated directions for the removal of stray cattle and animals from highways, citing a rise in accidents, and warned that non-compliance could invite penalties, including suo motu contempt.

The suo motu proceedings were initiated last July amid a surge in dog-bite incidents nationwide. The court has since summoned chief secretaries, criticised states for “sleeping over” implementation of ABC rules, and flagged reports of employees feeding stray dogs within institutional premises in violation of court orders.