Bench reprimands states for inaction
A three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath with Justices Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria expressed clear dissatisfaction that only West Bengal, Telangana and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had filed the court-mandated compliance affidavits. The court ordered Chief Secretaries of the defaulting states and UTs to appear in person to explain the delay, warning of costs and coercive steps if they fail to comply.
Why the court intervened: background of the suo motu case
The matter arose from a Times of India report titled “In a city hounded by strays, kids pay price”, which prompted the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance in July 2025. Initial directions in August ordering mass pickup and sheltering of strays were later modified by a larger bench that emphasised the Animal Birth Control Rules: dogs picked up for sterilisation and vaccination must generally be released back to their original localities, except animals infirm or suspected of rabies or exhibiting aggressive behaviour.
Court’s comments on public perception and media reports
Justice Vikram Nath noted the reputational damage caused by continuing incidents of stray dog attacks and observed that the issue had been widely reported in print and social media. The bench asked why the National Capital Territory of Delhi had not filed an affidavit and cautioned that, if officers remain unaware despite widespread coverage, the court may impose stricter measures.
Orders, exceptions and policy scope
The August 22 modification of the earlier order restated Rule 11(9) of the ABC Rules: after sterilisation, deworming and immunisation, picked-up stray dogs are to be released at the same place of capture, with exceptions—rabies-infected or aggressive animals. The Supreme Court has also prohibited indiscriminate public feeding and has directed creation of dedicated feeding spaces and local implementation plans. The bench has expanded the matter to a pan-India level and asked states, secretaries of animal husbandry departments and municipal corporations to ensure compliance.
What to expect on November 3
The Court has fixed November 3 for the personal appearance of Chief Secretaries who did not file affidavits. The hearing is likely to focus on reasons for non-compliance, steps taken by state authorities to implement ABC Rules, and timelines for submitting detailed compliance reports. The bench warned that failure to appear could trigger costs or coercive procedural steps.
Where readers can check the orders
Readers seeking the full Supreme Court order and earlier bench judgments can consult the Supreme Court repository of orders and LiveLaw’s coverage for real-time updates.
