The Supreme Court has expressed deep dissatisfaction with the “vague” and “misleading” measures taken by state governments to manage the burgeoning stray dog population. During a significant hearing on Wednesday,
a three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria warned that it would pass “strong strictures” and impose heavy compensation if compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules does not improve immediately.
The apex court observed that state governments were effectively “building castles in the air” by filing affidavits that lacked verified data, adequate manpower, or a realistic action plan. The bench was particularly appalled by the statistics from Assam, where 1.66 lakh dog bite incidents were reported in 2024, yet the state possesses only a single functional dog centre in Dibrugarh. “It is astonishing and shocking,” the court remarked, noting that in January 2025 alone, Assam recorded over 20,900 bites.
The court, aided by Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal, scrutinised the performance of several states:
Jharkhand: The bench questioned “absolutely fudged up” figures that claimed nearly 1.6 lakh dogs were sterilised in just two months, asking how such a feat was logistically possible with the current infrastructure.
Bihar: With an estimated six lakh stray dogs, the state’s sterilisation of just 20,648 animals was deemed “totally insufficient”.
Gujarat & Haryana: These states were pulled up for having no information on dog pounds or for remaining silent on the fencing of sensitive public areas like schools and hospitals.
The Supreme Court reiterated its stance that while the welfare of animals is important, it cannot come at the cost of human life and safety. Justice Mehta pointed out the increasing frequency of attacks on children and vulnerable citizens, noting that even the Gujarat High Court complex had recently witnessed a dog-bite incident.
The court’s current framework mandates a Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release (CNVR) model. However, it has specifically ordered that dogs must be permanently removed from “institutional areas”—such as hospitals and educational campuses—and moved to shelters rather than being released back into those sensitive zones. The bench also reaffirmed a controversial observation from earlier this month, suggesting that public feeders who encourage strays to congregate in non-designated areas could be held legally and financially accountable for any subsequent attacks.
As the hearing continues, the court has demanded a complete audit of ABC centres and a time-bound implementation plan, making it clear that the “total eye wash” of current administrative reporting will no longer be tolerated.
