Applicability of ABC Rules, Tortious Liability, Euthanasia: Key Takeaways from Supreme Court’s Stray Dogs Case Ruling

Supreme Court: While deliberating this suo motu case on stray dogs, the Court had to consider several applications seeking modification/recall/clarification/stay on directions issued by the Court on 7 November 2025, while several applications were filed seeking expansion of these directions to other areas, including gated housing societies, housing complexes, parks, and other public places frequented by the public at large. The three-Judge Bench of Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., issued comprehensive directions in the matter and affirmed the directions dated 7 November 2025 insofar as they exclude such premises from the operation of rerelease under Rule 11(19), Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (ABC Rules).

The Court interpreted relevant statutory provisions and discussed the broader issues surrounding stray dog management and issued key directions related to sterilisation, etc. Here are the key takeaways from the verdict:

Also Read: The Stray Dog Case Explained: Key Developments and Updates

Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 — Scope and Applicability

1. Proper and harmonious construction of the provisions of the ABC Rules, when read in conjunction with the parent enactment, i.e., Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act), does not support the proposition that stray dogs possess an indefeasible or absolute right to occupy or remain within all categories of spaces or premises, irrespective of their nature or use.

2. The scheme of the ABC Rules, is regulatory in character, intended to facilitate humane management of stray dog populations, including their control, sterilisation, vaccination and regulated presence in appropriate public areas, and cannot be elevated to confer a perpetual or unqualified right of existence upon such animals in every location where they may be found, particularly in spaces where considerations of public safety, health and institutional functioning assume significance.

3. Rule 7(2), ABC Rules, which classifies “street dogs” or “community owned dogs” as those that are homeless and are found living on streets or within a gated campus, is merely a classificatory provision. Its purpose is to identify and demarcate categories of animals for the limited purpose of regulation, management and application of the statutory framework, which is directed towards scientific control and stabilisation of the canine population in the interest of safeguarding public health and safety and not to create or recognise any substantive or vested right in favour of such animals to continue occupying those spaces indefinitely. The provision is thus descriptive in nature and not declaratory of any enforceable entitlement.

4. The expression “gated campus” in Rule 7(2), ABC Rules must be understood in a limited and contextual sense, and cannot be expansively construed to cover all categories of controlled-access institutional spaces, particularly those where safety, hygiene and regulated activity are of paramount importance. The inclusion of “gated campus” in Rule 7(2) therefore, cannot be read in a manner that legitimises or perpetuates the presence of stray dogs in such sensitive and high-risk spaces, nor can it be interpreted to override the obligation of the State and municipal/Local Authorities to ensure safe, secure and hazard-free institutional environments.

5. Rule 11(19), ABC Rules, which mandates the release of sterilised and vaccinated dogs to the same place or locality from where they were picked up, must necessarily be read in a manner consistent with the PCA Act. The expression “same place or locality” cannot be construed in an unbound or expansive manner so as to include private premises, institutional campuses, or controlled-access spaces such as hospitals, colleges and similar establishments.

6. The statutory scheme underlying the PCA Act and the ABC Rules, does not mandate, nor can it be interpreted to require, the continued presence or compulsory reintroduction of stray dogs within institutional premises or other restricted-access areas.

7. Thus, stray dogs found within such institutional spaces or similar controlled environments, including educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, airports, bus stands/depots (including inter-State Bus Terminals) and railway stations cannot be held to fall within the scope of the classification contemplated under Rule 7(2), ABC Rules, i.e., “street dogs” or “community owned dogs”, inasmuch as the said provision, read in conjunction with Rule 11(19), ABC Rules, cannot be construed to extend to sensitive or restricted premises of this nature.

8. Stray dogs do not possess an indefeasible right to be re-released to the same location from where they were picked up, and their presence in sensitive or restricted-access public spaces cannot be justified by invoking Rule 7(2) read with Rule 11(19), ABC Rules.

Also Read: Supreme Court issues directions addressing rise in dog bites incidents within institutional areas & road accidents caused by stray cattle

Accountability and Tortious Liability in the Context of Stray Dog Management

1. The Court emphasised consideration of the issue that whether animal welfare organisations, associations, or individuals, who claim to care for or exercise control over stray dogs in a given locality, would be willing to accept tortious liability in respect of any injury, harm or damage caused by such dogs to members of the public. “The issue assumes significance inasmuch as the assertion of a right to protect or maintain stray dogs in public spaces cannot be divorced from the obligation to ensure that such actions do not result in harm to others.”

2. Similar concerns expressed in the context of institutional premises, particularly educational institutions.

3. Absence of any clear framework for fixing such liability underscores the imbalance between the assertion of rights in favour of stray animals and the lack of accountability for the consequences of their presence in sensitive environments.

4. It was observed that if Animal Law Centre created by National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, University of Law, Hyderabad (NALSAR) wishes to carry out the work in terms of the Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release (CSVR) model inside the NALSAR campus, then such activity can be permitted on an experimental basis, subject to the pre-condition that the Animal Law Centre shall furnish an undertaking to the Vice–Chancellor that, in the event of any incident of stray dog bite occurring within the campus, the Animal Law Centre shall be liable to face tortious liability for the injury caused to the individual/s concerned.

5. Court opined that any framework concerning stray dog management and protection, must necessarily be accompanied by clearly defined principles of accountability. The assertion of rights or interests in favour of such animals cannot operate in isolation, divorced from the corresponding responsibility to safeguard human life and safety.

6. For Animal welfare groups or student-led bodies in educational institutions, it shall be mandatory to expressly undertake such liability by filing an affidavit to this effect with the Head of the Institution concerned, failing which no such activity of maintaining or feeding stray dogs shall be permitted within the institutional premises. Failure to comply would entail suitable action against the Head of the Institution concerned.

Also Read: Capture, Vaccinate, Release: Supreme Court modifies stray dog order; Bans street feeding

Standard Operating Procedure Issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India

1. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was issued in compliance with directions dated 7 November 2025 and intended to provide uniform framework to be adopted across all States and Union Territories for effective implementation of the directions.

2. SOPs, lay down a comprehensive operational framework addressing multiple facets of stray dog management, including identification and establishment of shelters, regulation of shelter capacity in accordance with prescribed spatial parameters, feeding protocols, waste management systems, and deployment of adequate personnel for maintenance and supervision.

3. Court opined that inclusion of additional categories of public places such as religious sites, parks, tourist locations and other similar areas in the SOPs cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the directions issued by the Court. Such places are equally characterised by significant public access and congregation, often involving continuous and dense footfall, including by vulnerable sections such as children, elderly persons and tourists unfamiliar with local conditions, and therefore, stand on a similar footing as the institutional areas expressly referred to in 7 November directions.

Compliance of Directions by State, Union Territories and Authorities Concerned

1. Failure to adopt a proactive, structured and sustained approach under the ABC Rules framework has resulted in a largely reactive and crisis-driven response, necessitated by the escalation of the problem rather than its prevention.

2. Sterilisation and vaccination programmes have been undertaken in a fragmented manner, without adequate planning, monitoring or follow-through, thereby significantly undermining their efficacy.

3. Court was appraised of multiple reports indicating rising frequency and severity of incidents of dog bites and stray dog attacks.

4. Continued non-compliance or apathy in the implementation of the directions issued by the Court and hereinafter, by the jurisdictional High Courts shall be viewed seriously, and the erring officials of the municipal authorities and the departments of the States and Union Territories concerned shall render themselves liable for appropriate proceedings, including proceedings for contempt of court, disciplinary proceedings and tortious liability.

5. Court emphatically reiterated that States and Union Territories are under a continuing and untrammelled constitutional obligation to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.

6. While considerations pertaining to animal welfare and the protection of sentient beings constitute matters of undeniable constitutional, statutory and moral significance, such considerations cannot be permitted to eclipse or subordinate the paramount obligation of the State to safeguard human life, bodily integrity and public safety.

Directions Related to Euthanising Rabid Dogs

1. The Court has directed that in areas where the population of stray dogs has assumed alarming proportions and where incidents of dog bites or aggressive attacks have become frequent and pose a continuing threat to public safety, the authorities concerned may, subject to due assessment by qualified veterinary experts and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the PCA Act, the ABC Rules and other applicable statutory protocols, take such measures as may be legally permissible, including euthanasia in cases involving rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous/aggressive dogs, so as to effectively curb the threat posed to human life and safety.

[City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, In re, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) 5/2025, decided on 19-5-2026]

*Judgment by Justice Sandeep Mehta