A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India on 22 August 2025 substantially modified its earlier order of 11 August in the stray dog management matter, restoring the statutory position under the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2023 that captured dogs be sterilised, vaccinated, and released to the same locality — except those that are rabid or aggressive. The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Abhay S. Oka, and Justice Augustine George Masih acknowledged that the blanket non-release direction in the earlier two-judge order was "too harsh" and placed it in abeyance.
Background
The earlier order of 11 August 2025, passed by a two-judge Bench, had directed Delhi-NCR authorities to capture all stray dogs, sterilise and vaccinate them, and house them in shelters — without releasing them back to the streets. That order had departed from the established ABC (Animal Birth Control) protocol following the death of a six-year-old girl from rabies in Delhi.
The 11 August order drew strong reactions from animal welfare organisations who argued that mass sheltering was impractical, inhumane, and contrary to the existing statutory framework. The matter was subsequently placed before a three-judge Bench for reconsideration.
Key Directions
The modified order of 22 August 2025 included several important directions:
Restoration of ABC protocol: The Bench restored the capture-sterilise-vaccinate-release framework under the ABC Rules, keeping the earlier non-release direction "in abeyance." Captured dogs must be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated, and returned to the same localities from where they were picked up.
Exception for dangerous animals: Dogs suffering from rabies, suspected to be rabid, or displaying aggressive behaviour are excepted from the release-back protocol and must be housed in shelters or dealt with under the applicable rules.
Institutional area protections: The Court carved out "institutional areas" — schools, colleges, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots, railway stations, and inter-state bus terminals — as zones requiring enhanced protective measures. Stray dogs found within these premises must be removed, sterilised, and vaccinated but then shifted to designated shelters rather than released back to the institutional area.
Designated feeding spaces: Municipal authorities were directed to establish designated feeding areas and helplines to report violations, recognising the need to regulate human behaviour around stray animals as part of the management framework.
Financial contributions: The Court directed petitioners and intervening parties to contribute to infrastructure development — individual petitioners to deposit twenty-five thousand rupees and NGOs two lakh rupees each with the Court registry, to be used for stray dog management infrastructure.
National policy directive: The Court directed the formulation of a comprehensive national policy on stray dog management, signalling that the matter required systemic institutional solutions rather than case-by-case judicial intervention.
Implications for Practitioners
The modified order represents a judicial course correction that reconciles the Court's public safety concerns with the existing statutory framework. For animal welfare practitioners, the restoration of the ABC protocol is significant — it confirms that the statutory release-back mechanism remains the default approach, even where individual incidents of harm have triggered judicial intervention.
The institutional area carve-out creates a new category of premises where stray dog management operates under a stricter standard. Schools, hospitals, and transport hubs now have a judicial basis for demanding that municipal authorities prioritise stray dog removal from their premises, with sheltering rather than release as the mandated outcome.
For municipal lawyers, the financial contribution requirement imposed on litigants is notable — it signals the Court's awareness that enforcement requires resources and that parties invoking judicial intervention should contribute to the cost of implementation.
The directive for a national policy suggests that the Court views existing frameworks as inadequate and expects the central government to develop a comprehensive approach that balances animal welfare, public safety, and municipal capacity constraints.