SC to hear stray dogs case on Nov 3, Chief secretaries asked to appear

The Supreme Court will hear on Monday, November 3, the ongoing case concerning the management of stray dogs across India, in which it has directed the chief secretaries of all states and Union Territories, except West Bengal and Telangana, to appear before it in person. The direction follows widespread non-compliance with earlier court orders to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules in letter and spirit.

The three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria will review why several states and UTs failed to file compliance affidavits despite a clear order issued on August 22. The apex court had then sought detailed reports on measures taken to enforce the ABC Rules, which mandate sterilisation and vaccination of stray dogs as humane methods of population control.

During the last hearing on October 27, the bench expressed strong displeasure over the lack of response from most states and UTs. Only West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had submitted their compliance reports. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta later requested that the chief secretaries be allowed to appear virtually, but the court rejected the plea on October 31, stating there was “no respect” for its orders.

The Supreme Court’s intervention stems from a suo motu action initiated on July 28, after alarming media reports of fatal dog attacks and rabies-related deaths, particularly among children in Delhi-NCR and other regions. The bench noted that the incidents reflected not only a grave public health hazard but also a systemic failure by local authorities to enforce existing laws on animal control. The Court subsequently expanded the case to include all states and UTs, observing that the application of the ABC Rules must be uniform across India.

The Animal Birth Control Rules, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, aim to regulate the stray dog population through sterilisation and anti-rabies vaccination rather than through culling or relocation. Local bodies are legally responsible for maintaining sterilisation centres, dog pounds, trained catching personnel, and records of vaccinated animals. The rules also uphold the humane treatment of animals, aligning with the constitutional duty under Article 51A(g) to show compassion toward living creatures.

Legal experts say the outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for both animal welfare and urban governance. The court’s insistence on compliance may push states to integrate animal control and waste management systems into urban planning, enforce stricter public health protocols, and develop dedicated infrastructure for community animals. It could also lead to the framing of a more comprehensive national policy on animal welfare, establishing clear accountability for local administrations.

The Court is expected to review the compliance status of all states and UTs during Monday’s hearing and outline further directions to ensure humane and effective management of stray animals across the country.