Image Source: Pexels
On 19 May 2026, the Supreme Court (SC) of India declined petitions filed by animal welfare groups and individual petitioners seeking to modify its 7 November 2025 order directing the removal of stray dogs from certain public areas with heavy human presence. These public places included educational campuses, hospitals, bus depots, railway stations, and similar facilities. The country’s apex Court acknowledged that the Constitution of India guaranteed every citizen the right to free movement and access to public spaces without the continual trepidation of attack by dogs, and that such a preventable threat to human life could not be allowed to persist.
In the November 2025 order, the SC had recognised the continued significant risk arising from the unchecked presence of stray animals on public roads, national highways, and institutional premises. Factors such as the excessive multiplication of stray dogs owing to insufficient enforcement of sterilisation programmes; the inappropriate clearance of discarded food in the vicinity of public institutions; the absence of comprehensive boundary control; deficits in institutional and municipal synchronisation; and insufficient public awareness of how to avoid harm and seek proper medical care following a dog bite were collectively responsible for the situation.
The Court directed that at least one fully operational Animal Birth Control Centre should be established in every district of the country. Moreover, authorities should make informed and reasoned decisions on excluding stray dogs from other high-footfall public places.
The Court directed that at least one fully operational Animal Birth Control Centre should be established in every district of the country. Moreover, authorities should make informed and reasoned decisions on excluding stray dogs from other high-footfall public places. The Court also called for the adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines at all times. It further permitted euthanasia for demonstrably dangerous, aggressive, or incurably ill and rabid dogs. The Court granted ‘protection’ to municipal authorities for any action that was taken in the honest performance of administratively authorised jobs and mandated High Courts to quash “frivolous, vexatious or malicious proceedings” initiated against such officials.
In reaching its conclusions, the Court cited reports of rising incidents involving stray dogs. Udaipur had recorded approximately 1,750 dog-bite cases in 2026. Bhilwara witnessed 42 dog bites in a single day. Tamil Nadu has so far recorded 2.63 lakh dog-bite cases and 17 deaths this year. The International Airport in New Delhi has reported at least 31 dog-bite incidents across its terminals since January 2026. Concluding that monitoring the matter at the SC level was impractical, the Court directed all High Courts to register suo motu petitions and monitor compliance through a ‘continuing mandamus’.
The judgment disappointed animal welfare activists. Although they welcomed the emphasis on strengthening the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme, they expressed concern about the observations relating to euthanasia. They argued that the inadequate implementation of court directives by municipal bodies was the primary cause of the improper management of stray dogs.
The SC order, however, needs to be viewed in the context of the critical situation in India. The Government of India’s 20th Livestock Census counted 15.3 million stray dogs in 2019. However, independent assessments estimate the number to be around 62 million. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), India accounts for 36 percent of the world’s rabies deaths. Moreover, between 30 and 60 percent of reported rabies cases and deaths in India occur in children under the age of 15 years, as bites involving children often go unreported. The order records that such ground realities emerging from various parts of the country are deeply disturbing. Young children have been mauled, elderly persons have been attacked, ordinary persons have been left vulnerable in public spaces, and even international travellers have fallen victim to dogs. It concludes that such an unchecked situation would be wholly incompatible with a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.
International evidence suggests that sustained population reduction is rarely achieved through episodic removal measures.
Beyond public health concerns such as bites, rabies, and deaths, unmanaged street dog populations can also affect the quality of life in cities. They can contribute to perceived safety risks, noise complaints, sanitation issues, and reduced accessibility to public places, particularly for children, the elderly, and other vulnerable users. Stray dogs also defecate on roads, pavements, and other public areas, including parks, inconveniencing walkers and adding to urban solid waste management and sanitation burdens. Moreover, such waste deposition not only undermines the objectives of the Swachh Bharat Mission but also poses serious health risks to humans, as stray dogs can transmit zoonotic parasites and contaminate water sources.
International evidence suggests that sustained population reduction is rarely achieved through episodic removal measures. More durable outcomes are generally associated with integrated management strategies, including sustained sterilisation, mass vaccination, food waste management, pet registration, shelter infrastructure, public awareness, and continuous population monitoring systems.
However, urban policy increasingly needs to move towards managing free-roaming dog populations through sterilisation, sheltering, responsible ownership, and regulated exclusion from high-footfall public places. For cities, dealing with street dogs will remain challenging, as local authorities will need to identify additional high-footfall public spaces beyond those already identified by the SC. They will also have to determine which dogs are demonstrably dangerous, aggressive, or terminally ill, making them eligible for euthanasia. Many officials may be unwilling to take the risk of being held accountable for errors in judgment despite the protection afforded by the SC. Additionally, given that many large cities are already at breaking point because of overpopulation, underfunding, and institutional constraints, the SC’s directions on the governance of free-roaming dog populations may face significant implementation challenges. The SC has acknowledged that cities have struggled to implement past orders. In light of these challenges, the SC order leaves unanswered questions regarding the long-term governance of free-roaming dog populations.
The SC has foregrounded public safety, but implementation will depend on municipal capacity, animal welfare safeguards, and institutional realism.
The SC has foregrounded public safety, but implementation will depend on municipal capacity, animal welfare safeguards, and institutional realism. Without these complementary measures, exclusion from selected public places may merely redistribute rather than reduce the stray dog population. The challenge before cities, therefore, is not choosing between public safety and animal welfare, but designing governance arrangements that can realistically deliver both.
Ramanath Jha is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.