The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed dissatisfaction with the measures taken by several states to control the stray dog population, warning of strict action if compliance does not improve, Bar and Bench reported.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria said that several states had failed to adequately implement measures to sterilise, vaccinate and shelter stray dogs, and had not removed them from sensitive areas such as educational institutions and hospitals.
The court highlighted data from Assam, noting that while 1.6 lakh cases of dog bites had been reported in 2024, the state had only one functional dog centre.
“It is astonishing,” the court was quoted as saying. “In 2024, there were 1.66 lakh bites. And in 2025 only in January, there were 20,900. This is shocking.”
The court also flagged deficiencies in affidavits filed by several states, observing that many lacked basic data on dog bite incidents, sterilisation capacity, dog pounds and manpower.
“All the states who have put these vague averments in their affidavits, will get a proper dressing down,” Bar and Bench quoted the court as saying. “Total eye wash.”
Specifically, the bench expressed concern about data submitted by Jharkhand, Gujarat, Bihar and Haryana, and noted that Karnataka was the only state to provide data on stray dogs in institutional premises, though no dogs had been removed.
The case in the Supreme Court about stray dogs began in July, when a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took suo moto cognisance of concerns about stray dogs in public places based on a media report.
On August 11, it directed authorities in the National Capital Territory of Delhi to immediately begin relocating street dogs and build shelters for 5,000 to 6,000 animals within six weeks.
However, the directions were challenged by animal rights groups and the case was shifted to a three-judge bench headed by Nath.
On August 22, the court stayed the directions given by the two-judge bench and said that stray dogs that are picked up should be released back into the same area after being sterilised, dewormed and immunised.
The court, however, had said that dogs displaying aggressive behaviour, or those infected with rabies, should not be released.
On November 3, the court took serious note of government employees feeding stray dogs within office premises, observing that such conduct violated its directions mandating the creation of designated feeding zones for canines.
On November 7, it ordered that all government premises, such as hospitals, schools and railway stations, must be properly fenced to prevent stray dogs from entering. The court said that the local authorities would be responsible for removing stray dogs from such areas, and placing them in designated shelters after vaccinating and sterilising them.
It also directed that stray dogs picked up from these premises must not be released in the areas from which they are taken away.
Several animal rights groups had later sought changes to the order, objecting to the ban on releasing the dogs in the same areas.
During the last hearing on January 13, the court said that the civic authorities and individuals who feed stray dogs could be held responsible for injuries or deaths caused by animal attacks.
The hearing will continue on Thursday, Live Law reported.
Also read:
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!