On 22nd August, the Supreme Court of India delivered a balanced but decisive interim judgment in the stray dog menace case. A clear first victory for OpIndia’s campaign against the menace, the apex court drew a clear line between citizen safety and dog-lobby narrative. The Court made it explicit that the right to life of Indians cannot be compromised to accommodate rabid and aggressive dogs.
The judgment has been passed by a three-judge Bench, headed by Justice Vikram Nath and comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria. The Bench modified the earlier 11th August judgment in the suo motu case passed by a two-judge Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which directed the Delhi-NCR authorities to round up all dogs from the streets in a phased manner.
While continuing sterilisation, deworming, and vaccination, the Court categorically prohibited the release of rabid or aggressive dogs back on the street. Just as importantly, it struck a major blow to dog-feeding lobbies by banning feeding on roads and public spaces. Instead, municipal bodies must create designated feeding zones within every ward.
What the Supreme Court ordered
The Court has clarified certain points as follows:
- Stray dogs must be picked up, sterilised, dewormed, and vaccinated.
- These dogs are to be returned to the same area only if they are healthy and non-aggressive.
- Dogs infected with rabies, suspected to be rabid, or showing aggression cannot be released back under any circumstances. They must be kept in separate shelters.
- Feeding of stray dogs on public roads is now banned. Feeding areas must be designated by municipal authorities, and violators can be prosecuted. This means dog feeders in gated societies cannot feed dogs anywhere they wish within the premises. Feeding will be permitted only at the officially designated areas.
- A helpline must be created in every municipality to allow citizens to report illegal feeding.
- Individuals and NGOs who approached the Court on behalf of dogs must deposit ₹25,000 and ₹2 lakh respectively within 7 days. The money will fund municipal dog infrastructure.
- No adopted dog can be sent back to the streets. Once adopted, it is the adopter’s responsibility to keep the dog off public spaces.
This order, while softer than the 11th August direction that required all picked-up dogs to be permanently impounded, nonetheless sets aside key provisions of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2023. In particular, Rule 16 (allowing feeding of community dogs in public) and Rule 20 (requiring release of sterilised dogs back to the same area) have been diluted to the extent that they no longer shield rabid, aggressive, or dangerous dogs on the streets.
Ban on feeding in public spaces
One of the most significant elements of the ruling is the blanket ban on public feeding. The Court has made it illegal to feed dogs on streets, roads, and public places. Instead, each municipal authority has been directed to create dedicated feeding spaces, marked with boards and gantries, where feeding can take place.
This step directly addresses one of the biggest enablers of dog attacks, that is roadside feeding. When stray dogs are fed on streets, it brings packs together, increases aggression, and makes entire neighbourhoods unsafe. The Court noted how unregulated feeding has led to untoward incidents across the country. From citizens being chased and bitten while on morning walks to children mauled near feeding spots, the dangers have been well documented. OpIndia, as part of its campaign, is regularly documenting these cases.
For years, self-styled dog lovers have claimed that feeding is an act of compassion. But as the Court has now recognised, compassion cannot come at the cost of citizen safety. If feeding is to happen, it must happen in controlled spaces and not in the middle of roads where people live, work, or walk.
Penalties imposed on dog lovers and NGOs
Another striking feature of the order is the financial penalty imposed on those who have tried to stall dog-removal efforts through litigation. The Court directed each individual dog-lover petitioner to deposit Rs 25,000, and each NGO to deposit Rs 2 lakh within a week. If they fail to comply, they will not be permitted to appear in the matter further.
The Court has also directed that this money will not sit idle. It must be used to build infrastructure for municipal dog shelters, veterinary care, and dedicated feeding zones. This is a powerful message to animal-rights groups that litigation cannot be a playground for obstruction while citizens continue to bleed.
However, in a statement, Maneka Gandhi said that the Government of India has allocated Rs 2,500 crores for ABC programmes. This is indeed a massive amount, and the onus should not be on the general public but on those who continue to favour stray dogs.
For years, NGOs shielded under the ABC Rules have pushed for unconditional release of stray dogs back onto the streets. With this ruling, the Court has not only curbed their influence but also made them pay up for the mess created under the ABC regime.
Sterilisation and vaccination are not enough
The Court has clarified that sterilisation and vaccination programmes will continue. However, it does not mean these are the ultimate solution. Sterilisation may prevent breeding, and vaccination may prevent rabies spread, but neither addresses the fundamental menace of dog attacks.
It has to be firmly printed in every mind that sterilised dogs still bite. Vaccinated dogs still chase and create havoc. In fact, authorities will only know whether a dog is “aggressive” after it has already bitten someone. That is the unfortunate reality of how this order is structured. To “identify” an aggressive dog, someone has to first become a victim.
Furthermore, this is going to be used as a loophole in the judgment by the self-styled dog lovers. As Maneka Gandhi said in a recent statement, there is no “definition” of an aggressive dog. Gandhi, who is behind the ABC Rules, hinted at the loophole present in the judgment almost immediately after the order came through.
#WATCH | Delhi | SC rules stray dogs in Delhi-NCR not to be rounded up permanently, animal rights activist & BJP leader Maneka Gandhi says," I am very happy with this scientific judgement. Relocation and fear are the only reasons for dogs biting. There is no question of releasing… pic.twitter.com/lfsS7t15v1
— ANI (@ANI) August 22, 2025
This is why relying on sterilisation as a long-term solution is flawed. Citizens’ right to life cannot depend on whether or not sterilisation has been successful in reducing population after decades. With more than 37 lakh dog bites reported in 2024 alone, the Supreme Court must go beyond sterilisation and mandate permanent removal of all biting dogs.
A victory, but also a warning
Make no mistake, this judgment is a turning point. For the first time, the Supreme Court has recognised that public feeding is unacceptable and that aggressive or diseased dogs cannot be re-released. This is the first crack in the dog-lobby fortress that has hidden behind ABC Rules for decades.
However, this order is also a warning. It shows that unless strong monitoring and immediate compliance are enforced, authorities will hide behind loopholes. Citizens should not have to wait for “more bite cases” to prove that a dog is aggressive. The Court must set strict timelines for states to file affidavits, demonstrate their facilities, and prove they are acting. Otherwise, as always, files will move slowly while more lives are lost.
Also, it has to be noted that the first order came on 11th August and the dog-lobby is so strong that they not only got a new Bench but also got an early hearing in the apex court. The judgment came just a week after it was reserved. If the dog menace is to be controlled, more sane voices need to become a party in the case. Thankfully, the Government of India has made it clear in the Court that the menace must be controlled and the ABC Rules are not enough to do so.
No obstruction will be tolerated
The Supreme Court has made it clear in para 16(f) of its 22nd August order that no individual or organisation can obstruct municipal authorities from implementing its directions. This reiterates para 13 of the 11th August order, leaving no ambiguity on the point. Any obstruction to public servants carrying out their duty will invite prosecution. This comes at a time when, on 18th August, MCD officials were attacked by self-styled dog lovers in Delhi’s Rohini during a stray dog removal drive. The Court’s warning leaves no doubt that such behaviour will now face the full force of the law.
Case expands nationwide
Until now, the stray dog litigation was largely confined to Delhi-NCR. However, the new ruling has expanded its scope across the entire country. All States and Union Territories have been impleaded through their Animal Husbandry and Municipal Departments.
The Registry has been asked to collect details of every stray-dog-related writ pending before various High Courts and transfer them to the Supreme Court. This means that instead of fragmented judgments from different states, there will now be one unified direction for the whole country. This is another major blow to the dog-lobby, which often managed to get favourable judgments from different High Courts.
This nationwide expansion is a historic moment. For decades, states have been shifting blame, pointing to the ABC Rules as a shield. Now, they will have to answer directly to the Supreme Court about what facilities they have, how many shelters exist, how many veterinarians are available, and whether citizens’ complaints are being addressed.
Impact on ABC Rules
Though no one will openly accept it, the 2023 ABC Rules, which were a modified version of the ABC Rules 2001, were designed as a charter for dog lovers. There were provisions like Rule 16 that allow feeding of “community dogs” in public places and Rule 20 which mandates the release of sterilised dogs back to their original spots, even if they had bitten someone.
Today’s ruling cuts straight into these provisions. Public feeding is now expressly banned, and aggressive or rabid dogs can no longer be released. In simple terms, Rules 16 and 20 have been rendered toothless, the same way the ABC Rules have been rendering state laws on controlling the dog menace toothless for decades. This is perhaps the most important outcome of the order as, for the first time, the Court has recognised that citizen safety cannot be sacrificed to dog-feeding activism.
The ruling also closes the door on a favourite argument of the animal-rights groups that sterilisation is enough. By carving out a category of dogs that must never return to streets, the Court has acknowledged the failure of “catch-neuter-release” to guarantee safety.
Balanced but historic
It must be noted that the judgment is still cautious. While banning feeding and disallowing aggressive dogs back on streets, it has kept sterilisation-based release in place for healthy dogs. The result is a compromise, that is, one step towards public safety, one step still bound to ABC philosophy.
For us at OpIndia, this is nonetheless a first victory. The Court has broken the monopoly of dog-lobby narratives. It has ordered financial accountability of NGOs and self-styled dog lovers. It has banned public feeding and prioritised human safety. And it has opened the door for nationwide scrutiny.
But we must also urge the Court not to wait for fresh victims to “prove” aggression. The burden of proof should not fall on children mauled or elderly citizens chased to their deaths. The Supreme Court should require proactive identification of dangerous dogs and insist on permanent removal as a rule, not an exception.
Our call to action
This order is a welcome start, but it cannot be the end. Sterilisation will not stop bites. Vaccination will not stop mauling of children, the elderly, the disabled, and the vulnerable ones. And no family should have to pay the price before a dog is labelled “aggressive.”
The Supreme Court must enforce strict deadlines for states and municipalities. It must demand statistics, compliance affidavits, and concrete action, not vague promises. It must ensure that shelters are built, helplines are active, and violators of the feeding ban are prosecuted.
Most importantly, it must never forget the core principle that India’s streets belong to its citizens, not to packs of feral animals. Today’s order is a first victory. The final victory will come when not a single child has to die to prove that dogs on streets are a menace.
In the end, it is also important to note that dog lovers and activists are already spreading the false claim that the 11th August order has been “stayed.” The truth is that it has only been modified, not struck down. By twisting facts to suit their agenda, these groups are once again attempting to mislead the public and downplay the Supreme Court’s clear stand against the stray dog menace.
OpIndia is doing a series on stray dog menace that can be checked here.
