While giving the verdict, the court mentioned Article 21 and said, protection of people’s lives is necessary.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a big verdict on stray dogs. The court rejected all the petitions demanding withdrawal of the instructions given in November 2025 regarding rehabilitation and sterilization of stray dogs. It has also been said in its decision that they will not be fed food in open places. The Municipal Corporation will catch stray dogs, sterilize and vaccinate them. The cases of dog bites are increasing.
Not only this, the court said that it is very important to protect the lives of people. Dangerous and sick stray dogs can be killed by giving injections. While giving the verdict, the court mentioned Article 21 and said, protection of people’s lives is necessary. They have the right to live a life with dignity, free from the dangers of dogs. The decision has been given based on this. Know what Article 21 is, when and what the Supreme Court said in the entire matter, why there was opposition, how the petitions increased. Understand in easy language.
What is Article 21?
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjari rejected several petitions seeking amendment to the directions issued by the court in November last year. Justice Mehta has written in his decision that under Article 21, every citizen has the right to roam free in public places without fear of any physical attack or fatal incidents like dog bite. The state cannot remain a silent spectator.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution gives every citizen of the country the right to live with dignity. The government cannot arbitrarily kill anyone or arrest anyone without reason. In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978), the court had said that the meaning of life is more than the existence of animals.
Supreme Court.
How did the case of stray dogs reach the court, what happened till now?
- On July 28, 2025, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of incidents of rabies deaths due to attacks by stray dogs. On August 11, an order was given to remove stray dogs from the residential areas of Delhi-NCR and send them to shelter homes within 8 weeks.
- This order of the Supreme Court was opposed and Chief Justice BR Gavai assigned a special bench of 3 judges to review the decision. The bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria reserved the decision.
- On August 23, orders were given that the captured dogs would be released only after sterilization. Dreadful dogs will be kept in captivity. In November 2025, the court asked to remove stray animals from all state and national highways. Asked to keep the dogs in the shelter home and not to leave them back. There was also a ban on feeding dogs on the streets.
- Dog rights advocates and NGOs filed petitions to cancel this order. Now on Tuesday the Supreme Court gave its verdict rejecting the same petitions.
- The Supreme Court has made it clear on Tuesday that the order to remove stray dogs from public places will not change. Their attacks are worrying. The Municipal Corporation will catch stray dogs, sterilize and vaccinate them. Rabies infected ferocious dogs will not be released back. Shelter homes will be prepared for dogs with dangerous behavior.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court said that we have considered the compliance of the instructions of this court by the states and union territories. There has been a clear lack of sustained, systematic and gradual efforts by the States and Union Territories to expand and strengthen the necessary infrastructure in proportion to the ever-increasing population of stray dogs.
The Supreme Court said that we have been made aware of incidents of dog bites in airports, residential areas, urban centers etc. Repeated incidents of dog bites at the country’s busiest airports (IGIs) itself reflect serious inefficiencies. A German traveler was bitten by a dog in Surat. Such incidents badly affect public confidence in urban administration. The Court is constrained to say that the problem has become more serious due to gross inaction in effective implementation of the ABC framework.
Incidents of biting by stray dogs are happening continuously. Reports show that the problem has taken a very worrying form. In Sri Ganganagar city of Rajasthan alone, 1084 dog bite incidents were recorded in a month. According to reports, the young children suffered serious injuries, including serious wounds on their faces.
Nearly 2 lakh cases were reported in Tamil Nadu in the first four months of the year. The Supreme Court said that this loss is not limited to just figures, but is immeasurable. Despite the instructions issued on 22 August and 7 November, it is clear from the material on record that these instructions have reached the grassroots level.
Delhi: On the Supreme Court verdict regarding stray dogs, Advocate Aditya Jha says, “This stray dog case has been going on for a long time. I am also a petitioner in it, and the case was also filed in my name, Aditya Jha vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi. After a long time, the pic.twitter.com/AKBsK1EyDp
— IANS (@ians_india) May 19, 2026
… then action will be taken against the states
Non-compliance of court instructions will be taken seriously. If the instructions are not followed, contempt, disciplinary proceedings and punitive liability proceedings will be initiated against the states. If the instructions are not followed, contempt proceedings will be initiated against the states.
The Supreme Court said that it is necessary to create a framework for the obligations of the state. The right to a dignified life includes the right to live freely, free from the threat of dog bites. The state cannot remain a silent spectator. The court cannot remain ignorant of the harsh ground realities where children, foreign travelers and elderly people have become victims of dog bite incidents.
The Constitution does not envisage a society where children and elderly people are dependent on kindness, physical strength and chance. The Supreme Court said that the States and Union Territories have a constitutional obligation under Article 21 to ensure the protection of the paramount right to life and safety of the citizens. This creates a duty to take effective and necessary measures to prevent situations that pose a threat to public safety, health and welfare, including the creation, promotion and maintenance of educational infrastructure for effective implementation of the ABC framework.
The Supreme Court said that if such conditions were allowed to continue unabated, the inevitable result could be a regression towards Darwin’s theory of evolution, in which case the principle of survival of the fittest would effectively regulate civic life in public places. Such a situation would be completely inconsistent with a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.
Delhi: On the Supreme Court hearing regarding stray dogs, a dog lover says, “…The update in the case filed in the Supreme Court by animal lovers and dog lovers is that today the SC has put a stay on this petition, and the earlier Supreme Court order in the matter will continue. pic.twitter.com/RGvNguGBSG
— IANS (@ians_india) May 19, 2026
Supreme Court’s instructions to the states
The Supreme Court has said, the state government will take necessary steps to strengthen and implement the AWBI framework rules. The states will ensure the establishment of at least one ABC center in each district. Keeping in mind the population density of each state district, the authorities will take necessary steps for expansion of ABC centres. All necessary measures will be taken to implement the directions of the Supreme Court and ensure that they are implemented in letter and spirit. Implementation of AWB rules should be ensured. Thoughtful and rational decisions will be taken regarding extending the SC directions to other public places to ensure the safety of the general public.
Adequate availability of anti-rabies medicines will be ensured. NHAI will solve the problem of stray animals on national highways etc. and will deploy old transport vehicles for stray animal management etc. NHAI will set up a monitoring and coordination framework. The relevant authorities may take legally permitted measures to reduce the threat to human life, including euthanasia in the case of dangerous dogs infected with rabies.
Those officers of Municipal Corporation, State Administration etc. who have been entrusted with the responsibility of implementation of the directions of the Court, will be entitled to appropriate protection in the work done by them, no FIR or punitive action will normally be taken against such officers.
Also read: Neither UP, nor Gujarat, which state has the highest number of dog bite cases? SC announced its decision
