In the ongoing stray dogs matter, the Supreme Court has announced that it will soon issue directions regulating the feeding of dogs within government buildings and office premises.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria stated that the order will be uploaded in a few days. Justice Vikram Nath observed, “We will issue orders regarding government institutions where employees are encouraging and supporting stray dogs in the area.”

Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for an intervenor, sought a hearing before such an order was passed, but the Bench declined, clarifying, “With regard to government institutions, we will not hear.” Nundy also flagged issues in how Delhi’s local bodies designated feeding areas for stray dogs. The Court said this aspect will be taken up during the next hearing.

During the hearing, the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories appeared before the Court following earlier directions. They were summoned for failing to file affidavits demonstrating compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. The Bench noted that the required affidavits have now been submitted. Accordingly, the Court dispensed with their personal appearance on future dates but warned that any further default would invite strict orders.

The Court also impleaded the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) as a respondent in the case. Furthermore, it allowed the intervention applications filed by victims of dog bites, waiving the deposit requirement applicable to dog lovers who had also sought to intervene.

The Bench confirmed that Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal will continue to assist the Court as amicus curiae.

On October 27, the Supreme Court had summoned Chief Secretaries of all States and UTs — except West Bengal and Telangana — for failing to submit compliance affidavits showing steps taken to implement the ABC Rules. Only West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had complied with the August 22 order. The Bench expressed disappointment that despite wide publicity and clear directions, most States did not file their affidavits or appear during the hearing.

Subsequently, on October 31, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before the Court, seeking permission for Chief Secretaries to appear virtually. However, the Bench refused, observing that the Court was compelled to resolve issues that municipal authorities and State governments should have addressed, and criticized the officials for failing to respect judicial orders.

The issue traces back to July 28, 2025, when a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan took suo motu cognizance based on a Times of India report titled “In a city hounded by strays, kids pay price.”

On August 11, the Pardiwala-led Bench expressed concern over rising dog bite and rabies cases, directing the Delhi authorities to capture stray dogs and relocate them to shelters, prohibiting their release. The directions also extended to Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad, warning that anyone obstructing such action would face legal consequences.

However, after concerns were raised before CJI BR Gavai that these orders conflicted with prior rulings, the matter was reassigned on August 13 to a three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath.

On August 14, the new Bench heard the matter and reserved its decision on whether to stay the August 11 directions. Subsequently, on August 22, the Bench stayed the earlier order, finding the blanket ban on releasing treated and vaccinated dogs “too harsh.”

Invoking Rule 11(9) of the ABC Rules, the Court clarified that sterilized, vaccinated, and dewormed dogs must be released back to the same area unless they are rabid, suspected of rabies, or display aggressive behavior.

The Bench also prohibited public feeding of stray dogs, ordering designated feeding zones instead. It warned against obstruction of municipal work related to dog control and expanded the scope of the case nationwide, bringing all States, UTs, Animal Husbandry Secretaries, and local bodies within the ambit of the proceedings.

Additionally, the Court stated that similar stray dog cases pending in High Courts would be transferred to the Supreme Court to facilitate a uniform national policy on the issue.

Case Title: In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”
Case No.: SMW (C) No. 5 of 2025