Supreme Court declines stay on stray dog order, flags state inaction

The Supreme Court on May 19 refused to stay its earlier directions concerning the management of stray dogs and criticised state governments for failing to take sustained measures to address the issue.

The court observed that many states had not effectively implemented sterilisation and vaccination programmes despite recurring incidents involving dog attacks and public safety concerns.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing petitions seeking modifications and a stay on earlier court directions relating to stray dog management and feeding practices.

However, the bench declined to interfere with its previous order and said the real issue was the lack of long-term implementation by authorities.

The court noted that merely blaming dog feeders or shifting responsibility would not solve the growing problem unless state governments and municipal authorities consistently carried out animal birth control and anti-rabies vaccination programmes.

The issue of stray dog attacks has increasingly become a national concern in recent years, with several states reporting incidents involving children, elderly residents and pedestrians being bitten or attacked by packs of stray dogs.

The matter has also triggered conflict between resident groups, animal welfare activists and local civic bodies over feeding zones, sterilisation policies and relocation demands.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act already provide a legal framework for managing stray dog populations through sterilisation, vaccination and community-based monitoring rather than mass culling.

The bench observed that many states had failed to establish proper infrastructure, adequate shelters and sustained sterilisation drives required under the rules. It also stressed that local bodies cannot treat the issue as a short-term administrative exercise.

The plea before the court reportedly sought a stay on earlier observations linked to designated feeding points and protection of community dogs. Petitioners argued that unrestricted feeding and weak enforcement had worsened stray dog aggression in residential areas.

However, the Supreme Court said the focus should remain on scientific population control measures rather than reactive or ad hoc responses after attacks occur. The court also underlined that public safety and animal welfare must be balanced within the framework of existing law.

The stray dog debate has intensified in states such as Kerala, Maharashtra and Delhi over the past few years, with repeated calls for stronger action after serious attack cases. At the same time, animal rights groups have opposed demands for mass removal or euthanasia of stray dogs, citing legal protections under Indian law.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to stay its earlier order means the existing directions regarding stray dog management and implementation of ABC Rules will continue to remain in force for now.