Must citizens outsprint stray dogs to exercise Article 21? SC’s answer comes with euthanasia nod

Today, a three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria pronounced judgement in its suo motu case concerning stray dog management across the country. The Bench upheld the Animal Welfare Board of India’s (AWBI) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and issued a fresh set of directions to States, Union Territories and civic authorities for implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework. The Court dismissed all applications seeking recall of its 7 November 2025 directions and all challenges to the AWBI SOP.

The Bench observed that implementation of the ABC framework had remained sporadic, underfunded and uneven across jurisdictions since its introduction in 2001. Sterilisation and vaccination programmes, it noted, were being carried out without planning, monitoring or continuity, defeating the purpose of scientific population control and mitigation of public health risks. The Court further noted that States and UTs had failed to build infrastructure in proportion to the steadily increasing stray dog population. “Had authorities acted with due diligence and foresight,” the Bench observed, “the situation would not have reached such alarming proportions.”

The Bench referred to reports showing 1,084 dog bite incidents in Rajasthan’s Sri Ganganagar district in a single month, with children suffering grievous injuries. The Court took note of reports of attacks in airports, residential areas and urban centres, including an incident involving a German traveller in Surat. “The harm is not just statistical, it is unfathomable,” the Court observed, adding that any non-compliance with its directions would invite contempt proceedings, disciplinary action and tortious liability against States and officials.

The Bench held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical attack or exposure to life-threatening incidents such as dog bites. The state, it said, cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue despite statutory mechanisms designed to address them.

The Court warned that if such conditions continue unchecked, civic life could regress into a “Darwinian theory of evolution” where survival of the fittest governs public spaces. “The Constitution of India does not envisage a society where children, elderly persons and vulnerable citizens are compelled to survive at the mercy of physical strength, chance or circumstance,” the Bench observed.

Court’s directions:

1. States and UTs were directed to take decisive and coordinated time-bound steps to strengthen and augment infrastructure under the ABC framework, including establishing at least one fully functional ABC centre in every district with trained personnel, surgical facilities and supporting logistics.
2. Authorities were directed to expand the number of ABC centres depending on population density and territorial extent of districts.
3.  States and UTs were directed to implement the Court’s directions and the AWBI Rules in “letter and spirit” without delay or dilution.
4.  Authorities were directed to take reasoned decisions on extending the Court’s directions to other high-footfall public spaces, transit hubs and places of congregation after assessing local conditions and public safety concerns.
5.  States and UTs were directed to undertake comprehensive capacity-building measures, including strengthening veterinary services, shelter facilities and vaccination drives, and ensuring adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin in government medical facilities.
6. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) was directed to formulate and implement a time-bound mechanism to deal with stray animals on highways and expressways through specialised transport vehicles, relocation measures and shelter facilities. NHAI was further directed to establish an effective monitoring and coordination framework for continuous oversight and prompt response.
7.  Authorities were permitted to take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia of incurably ill, rabid or demonstrably dangerous dogs, in areas where aggressive attacks have become frequent and pose a continuing threat to public safety.
8. Officials entrusted with implementation of the Court’s directions were granted protection for actions taken in good faith in discharge of their official duties. The Court directed that no FIR or criminal proceedings shall ordinarily be initiated against officers for bona fide actions undertaken while implementing its directions, unless a prima facie case of mala fides or gross abuse of authority is made out.
9. High Courts across the country were directed to register suo motu continuing mandamus proceedings to monitor compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions and were granted liberty to tailor directions to local conditions and exigencies without diluting the tenor or intent of the judgement.
10. Jurisdictional courts were empowered to initiate contempt proceedings and other action against officers responsible for non-compliance, inaction or wilful disregard of the Court’s directions.