Supreme Court Explains ABC Rules: Stray Dogs Removed From Schools, Hospitals and Transport Hubs Need Not Be Released Back There
Case Name: In Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”
Citation: 2026 INSC 506
Date of Judgment/Order: 19 May 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Held: The Supreme Court held that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 do not mandate, justify or confer any indefeasible right for stray dogs to continue occupying, or to be re-released into, institutional or restricted-access premises such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, airports, bus stands, railway stations and similar sensitive public spaces. The Court clarified that Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules is only a classificatory provision and Rule 11(19), which contemplates release of sterilised and vaccinated dogs to the same place or locality, cannot be interpreted to include sensitive institutional premises where public safety, hygiene and controlled access are paramount. The Court further held that its earlier directions dated 07.11.2025, requiring removal of stray dogs from institutional areas and prohibiting their re-release at the same location, are consistent with a purposive and harmonious interpretation of the statutory framework and are a valid exercise of powers under Article 142 to protect Article 21 rights of citizens.
Summary: The matter arose from several interlocutory applications seeking modification, clarification, vacation, recall or stay of the Supreme Court’s directions dated 07.11.2025, which had mandated removal of stray dogs from institutional areas and prohibited their re-release into the same locations after sterilisation and vaccination. Animal welfare groups contended that these directions conflicted with the ABC Rules, 2023, particularly Rule 11(19), which requires dogs to be released back to the same place or locality, and argued that permanent relocation would be contrary to the statutory Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release model. Opposing applicants supported the directions, relying on the growing menace of dog-bite incidents and the State’s obligation to secure safe public and institutional spaces. The Supreme Court balanced animal welfare concerns with the fundamental right to life and safety under Article 21 and held that the statutory framework must be read contextually, not mechanically. It reasoned that “same place or locality” under Rule 11(19) cannot be stretched to cover restricted, sensitive or controlled-access premises, and that the presence of stray dogs in such places may directly interfere with institutional functioning, public health and safety. The Court also upheld the Animal Welfare Board of India’s SOP dated 27.11.2025, holding that its extension to analogous public places such as religious sites, parks and tourist locations was within the object of the earlier directions and not contrary to the ABC Rules.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed all interlocutory applications seeking modification, clarification, vacation, recall or stay of the directions dated 07.11.2025 regarding removal of stray dogs from institutional areas and prohibition on their re-release at the same locations. The Court also dismissed the applications challenging the Animal Welfare Board of India’s Standard Operating Procedures dated 27.11.2025, holding that the SOPs validly operationalised the Court’s directions. It directed continued compliance monitoring by States and Union Territories, required compliance affidavits in the prescribed format before the jurisdictional High Courts, directed the Registrars General of the High Courts to forward consolidated compliance reports to the Supreme Court, and listed the matter for further consideration on 17.11.2026.