‘No state or UT has established infra’: Supreme Court comes down heavily on failure to control stray dog populations, says ‘state govts are building castles in the air’

Supreme Court hearing exposes lack of infrastructure to control stray dog population across states
Supreme Court questions states over failure to manage stray dogs and rising bite cases (image: Dall-E)

On 28th January, the Supreme Court came down heavily on States and Union Territories (UTs) over their failure to put in place basic infrastructure to control the stray dog population. The apex court observed that most governments were making vague claims without data, manpower, and a clear action plan.

The three-judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N V Anjaria was hearing the long-running suo motu matter on the stray dog menace. The court said that no state or UT had demonstrated that it had established adequate infrastructure to address the growing menace of dog bites.

Amicus flags lack of capacity, audits and manpower

Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal placed a detailed state-wise note before the court. He assessed four key areas, the functioning of ABC centres, setting up of dog shelters, removal of dogs from institutional areas, and steps to prevent cattle and animal ingress on highways.

For Andhra Pradesh, Agarwal pointed out that while 39 ABC centres existed, the state needed to audit whether they were being fully utilised and provide timelines for setting up new facilities. In Assam, he told the court that ABC infrastructure was grossly inadequate, with only one functional dog centre in Dibrugarh and no clarity on manpower.

The Bench noted that even affidavits running into hundreds of pages were silent on critical details such as staffing and daily sterilisation capacity.

‘Building castles in the air’, court remarks

As the hearing progressed through affidavits filed by Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand and Karnataka, the court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the quality of information placed on record.

“They are all building castles in the air,” the Bench remarked, noting that except for Assam, no state had even furnished reliable data on dog bite incidents. The court observed that claims of large-scale sterilisation were not backed by realistic figures or audits, and in some cases appeared inflated.

In Jharkhand’s case, the court questioned figures claiming nearly 1.9 lakh sterilisations, calling them “absolutely fudged up” and asking how such numbers were even logistically possible.

Rising dog bites, vulnerable victims highlighted

The Bench also took note of alarming bite statistics placed before it. It observed that Assam alone reported 1.66 lakh dog bite cases in 2024, with over 20,000 incidents already recorded in January 2025.

Agarwal told the court that many victims of dog attacks were children belonging to families of workers and daily wage earners. His statement showed how marginalised sections bore the brunt of administrative failure. The court reiterated its earlier concern that while passionate arguments were made for dogs, there was far less urgency when it came to protecting human lives.

States admit gaps, seek more time

Several states acknowledged gaps in shelters, dog pounds and catching mechanisms, repeatedly seeking three to six months’ time to put systems in place. Gujarat cited fresh budgetary allocations, while Maharashtra informed the court that it had created a dashboard to track bites, sterilisations and vaccinations, a step the Bench described as a “good beginning”.

The court, however, warned that vague assurances would not be accepted any longer. It said that states which had filed affidavits filled with general statements, instead of concrete data, would face strong strictures.

The hearing on the stray dog menace has once again brought to light the systemic collapse in stray dog management across India. With no credible audits, inadequate funding, shortage of manpower and near absence of shelters, even the stated goal of population control appears distant.

In such a scenario, it is evident that bringing stray dog numbers under control will take years, if not decades. Until then, children, the elderly, the disabled and economically marginalised communities, especially families of workers, will continue to face daily risk on streets, alleys and even outside schools.

The court will continue hearing submissions of States, UTs and NHAI on 29th January.

OpIndia is doing a series on Stray Dog Menace that can be checked here.

Written by OpIndia Staff
Last modified at