The Supreme Court on Monday (October 27, 2025) took strong exception to the failure of several States and Union Territories to comply with its August 22 directive mandating that stray dogs be released into the localities from which they were captured, following sterilisation, deworming, and immunisation.
A three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria summoned the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, except West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), to personally appear before the court on November 3 and explain why compliance affidavits had not been filed detailing steps taken to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Editorial | Practising compassion: On the stray dogs issue, Court order
“Pursuant to the order dated August 22, 2025, only three compliance affidavits have been filed. Although the same are not on record, as they were filed during the Deepavali vacations. These States are West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Notices have been issued to all States and Union Territories. As they have not responded, let the Chief Secretaries of all the States other than these three remain present before this Court on next Monday at 10.30 a.m. along with their respective explanations as to why compliance affidavits have not been filed,” the Bench ordered.
The Bench also pointed out that no representative from the remaining States or Union Territories was present during the hearing. Expressing displeasure over the lack of compliance, Justice Nath remarked, “Eight weeks’ time was granted in August. Today it is 27th October, no response, nothing.”
Justice Nath further questioned why the Delhi government had failed to submit its compliance report. “Why has the government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi not filed its affidavit? Chief Secretary to come up with an explanation… otherwise cost may be imposed and coercive steps will be taken…” he said.
In its August 22 order, the court had modified its earlier suo motu directive requiring civic authorities in Delhi and four adjoining districts to capture all stray dogs and confine them in shelters within six to eight weeks. Terming its August 11 order “too harsh”, the Bench had subsequently directed that the animals be released into the localities from which they were captured after undergoing sterilisation, deworming, and immunisation.
However, it had clarified that this relaxation would not apply to dogs infected or suspected to be infected with rabies, or those displaying aggressive behaviour. “Such dogs shall be sterilised and immunised, but under no circumstances should they be released back on the streets. As far as possible, they shall be housed in separate pounds or shelters after sterilisation and immunisation,” the Bench had observed, describing its revised approach as a “balancing exercise.”
The court had further directed municipal authorities to set up dedicated feeding zones in every ward to ensure that no inconvenience is caused due to the feeding of strays in public spaces. It had noted that such regulation was warranted in view of “untoward incidents” caused by unregulated feeding, which had created “great difficulties for the common man walking on the streets.”
Civic bodies had also been instructed to establish a helpline for reporting violations and to take “appropriate measures” against individuals or NGOs found in breach of the directions. The Bench had made it clear that anyone obstructing a public servant acting in compliance with its orders would face punitive action.
Notably, the Bench had expanded the scope of the proceedings beyond the Delhi–National Capital Region, directing that the matter be treated as a pan-India issue to facilitate the framing of a uniform national policy. It had accordingly ordered the impleadment of Secretaries of the relevant departments of all States and Union Territories in the proceedings.
In addition, individual petitioners and NGOs were directed to deposit ₹25,000 and ₹2 lakh, respectively, with the Supreme Court Registry within seven days, failing which they would be barred from further participation.
The suo motu case had initially been heard by a Bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala but was later reassigned by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath. The reassignment had followed an oral mentioning on August 13, 2025, by a lawyer who had apprised the CJI of a May 9, 2024, order mandating compassionate treatment of stray canines. In a rare administrative step, the CJI had withdrawn the case from Justice Pardiwala’s Bench and reassigned it to the Bench led by Justice Nath.
Published – October 27, 2025 11:38 am IST
