Introduction
In the children’s movie “Chillar Party” (2011), a group of kids stand up against a politician who seeks to get rid of stray dogs. While the movie obviously ends with the children’s victory by their appeal to general public, the issue faced by the Supreme Court was far more complex and cannot be reduced to such simplicity.
Table Of Content
In July 2025, the tragic death of a six-year-old child in Delhi from rabies after a stray dog attack sparked nationwide outrage.[1] Responding to the public outcry, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the ‘stray dog menace’[2] and, on 11 August 2025 a two Judge Bench (Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan)[3] inter alia directed that all strays in Delhi-NCR be rounded up and permanently housed in shelters, forbidding their return to the streets. The Bench observed this drastic step was needed to protect “infants, young children, aged should not at any cost fall prey to rabies,” and warned that “no sentiment should be involved”. Municipal authorities were told to immediately create thousands of kennel spaces and to begin capturing dogs “at the earliest” (within the following weeks) for sheltering.[4]
However, the said Order, effectively suspending India’s long-standing Catch-Neuter & Vaccinate-and-Release (CNR) policy triggered instant backlash[5]. It was pointed out that the directives directly conflicted with the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2023 (“ABC Rules”) framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 which required that the stray dogs be sterilized, vaccinated and be returned to the same locality from which they were captured. [6]
The ABC of ABC Rules
Before going any further, it is important to know about the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023[7].
Promulgated by the Central Government (effective from 10th March, 2023) under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, these rules supersede the 2001 ABC Rules and other local laws. The new Rules even provide that if any local law is “more irksome to the animal” than these rules, the former is rendered ineffective.
Some important provisions of ABC Rules
- Capture and Release (Rule 11): Sterilization teams must operate humanely and transparently. Any number of dogs taken to a facility must match its capacity. Healthy, sterilised dogs (marked by an ear “V-notch”) must be returned to their capture locality. Sick or injured dogs are released only when fit for travel; puppies under six months and nursing mothers are generally exempt from capture. [8]
- Rabies and Euthanasia (Rules 15-16): Only those dogs deemed incurably ill or mortally injured by a qualified panel may be humanely euthanized. Dogs suspected of rabies infection must be immediately isolated and never released; instead they must be put down under safety protocols. Logging and speedy investigation of biting incidents is mandatory. [9]
- Feeding of Strays (Rule 20): Resident associations and local bodies must designate feeding spots at agreed, low-risk locations (away from children’s play areas and busy streets). Disputes over feeder-sites go to an Animal Welfare Committee. Responsible feeders assist vaccination and sterilisation drives. [10]
- Local Law Precedence (Rule 22): If a state or municipal law is “less irksome to the animal” than the ABC Rules, that compassionate local law prevails; if it is harsher, it is null and void. This means harsher local dog-control ordinances cannot override the humane federal framework. [11]
After the 11 August Order
Critics also noted that forcibly detaining millions of dogs in shelters – an effort without sufficient time[12] and infrastructure, would be both impractical and inhumane[13]. They also invoked constitutional protections: even animals are accorded a right to life under Article 21 and the State has a fundamental duty of compassion towards all living beings under Article 51A(g). [14]From a practical standpoint, however, one cannot overlook the stark reality that in a country where large sections of the human population continue to struggle for access to basic shelter, food, and clean water, the prospect of extending such facilities to millions of stray dogs appears unrealistic. This concern is compounded by the present deficiencies in veterinary infrastructure and the acute shortage of qualified practitioners.
The 22 August Order
Faced with these objections, a larger three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court (Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria) heard detailed submissions and on 22 August 2025 significantly modified the 11 August 2025 directions (“22 August Order”)[15]. The Court set aside its blanket ban of “no-release” mandate into abeyance for healthy strays, aligning with the ABC Rules’ CNR policy and directed that dogs picked up for sterilisation and vaccination “shall be released back to the same area from which they were picked up”[16]. Only those animals “infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies, and those that display aggressive behaviour” are to be kept permanently in shelters[17]. In other words, healthy community dogs would no longer be warehoused indefinitely a policy shift broadly welcomed by animal rights advocates. The Court reasoned that forcing all dogs into pounds regardless of health or temperament was excessively harsh and unworkable given limited shelter infrastructure. [18]
Municipal authorities were also told to create designated feeding zones in each ward for community dogs, with clear notice boards and to prohibit feeding on city streets. Stray-dog feeders would have to restrict themselves to these sites or face legal action. [19]Dedicated helplines were mandated to report violations.[20]
Further, Individuals and NGOs involved in the litigation were ordered to deposit funds (Rs.25,000 per petitioner and Rs.2 lakhs per NGO) into the Court Registry; these amounts are to be used to improve shelter and ABC infrastructure.[21]
The Court explicitly extended its directives pan-India, directing all States and Union Territories to comply with the ABC Rules and ordering that similar cases pending before various High Courts be consolidated under this ruling. [22]The 22 August Order will, in all likelihood, put to rest the numerous petitions challenging the constitutionality of the ABC Rules across different courts.
Prior precedents
The Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles[23], it noted ABC Rules (the 2001 version as existing at the time) sought to prevent “unnecessary pain and suffering on a dog,” and that “there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines” under our laws.
In this writer’s observations, the 22 August order reaffirmed the constitutional principles as applied in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[24], the Court held that even if a statute provides a procedure (“procedure established by law”), that procedure must still be “fair, just and reasonable and not arbitrary”. By similar logic, any governmental action (or order by a Court of law, for the sake of argument) toward animals who have limited legal personhood must be fair.
Moreover, A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India[25] extended the reach of natural justice; the Supreme Court held that administrative acts affecting persons’ rights (here, the community’s and feeders’ interest in street dogs) must not be arbitrary.
In Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja & Ors.[26], the Court explicitly held that animals are protected under Article 21’s right to life, which includes “honour, dignity and intrinsic worth” for living beings. It also treated Article 51A(g)’s “compassion for all living creatures” as a “Magna Carta of animal rights.”
Conclusion
The 22 August Order highlighted that the challenge of maintaining balance between human safety and animal welfare and stray dogs is a national issue, not just a Delhi one.
The 22 August Order is commendable in a way that it took the middle path: protecting society from real threats (rabies and attacks) while preserving the rule of law, animal welfare norms, and constitutional duties.
Going forward, the challenge remains for governments and communities to make sure ABC Rules are implemented optimally. State and local bodies must invest in ABC infrastructure (as Court-ordered deposits will fund, may be till certain extent) and educate citizens about coexisting with community dogs.
(Views are Personal)
[1] Delhi Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price: Girl (6) Dies of Rabies after Dog Attack, Family Alleges Official Apathy,” Times of India, July 28, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-hounded-by-strays-kids-pay-price-girl-6-dies-of-rabies-after-dog-attack-family-alleges-official-apathy/articleshow/122938488.cms
[2] Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Fatal Stray Dog Attacks on Infants in Delhi,” NewsOnAir, July 28, 2025, 1:07 PM, https://www.newsonair.gov.in/supreme-court-takes-suo-motu-cognisance-of-fatal-stray-dog-attacks-on-infants-in-delhi/
[3] Supreme Court of India, “Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025 (Order dated 11 August 2025),”https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/41706/41706_2025_8_31_63158_Order_11-Aug-2025.pdf
[4] Ibid 4
[5] Namita Singh, “India’s Top Court Ordered 1 Million Stray Dogs Be Removed from the Streets. The Backlash Was Immediate,” The Independent, August 24, 2025. https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/delhi-stray-dog-indian-supreme-court-shelter-homes-b2813165.html.
[6] Arya Suresh, “Supreme Court’s War on Delhi’s Stray Dogs Is Misguided and Legally Problematic,” The Wire, August 12, 2025, https://www.thewire.in/law/the-supreme-courts-war-on-delhis-stray-dogs-is-misguided-and-legally-problematic
[7] Animal Welfare Board of India, Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2023, https://awbi.gov.in/uploads/regulations/167956418266ABC%20Rule%202023.pdf
[8] Ibid. Pg. 27
[9] Ibid. Pg. 29-30
[10] Ibid. Pg. 31-32
[11] Ibid Pg. 32
[12] Mollan, C. (2025, August 22). India’s Supreme Court says Delhi stray dogs will not be sent to shelters. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yejnze4p1o
[13] TOI News Desk, “SC Order on Stray Dogs: The Staggering Cost of Sheltering Delhi’s Street Canines Explained,” Times of India, August 13, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-order-on-stray-dogs-the-staggering-cost-of-sheltering-delhis-street-canines-explained/articleshow/123282292.cms.
[14] “Law, Compassion & the Constitution vs. the Supreme Court’s Dog Removal Edict,” Article 14, August 13, 2025. https://article-14.com/post/law-compassion-the-constitution-vs-the-supreme-court-s-dog-removal-edict-689d0facb60d1.
[15] Supreme Court of India. Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025 (Judgment dated 22 August 2025). https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/41706/41706_2025_3_1501_63567_Judgement_22-Aug-2025.pdf
[16] Ibid Pg. 16
[17] Ibid Pg. 16
[18] Ibid Para 32
[19] Ibid Pg. 17
[20] Ibid 17
[21] Ibid 18
[22] Ibid Pg. 19&20
[23] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3218
[24] 1978 AIR 597
[25] AIR 1970 SC 150
[26] (2014) 7 SCC 547
No Comment! Be the first one.