A three-judge bench observed that distressing incidents reported from across the country, including attacks on young children, life-threatening assaults on elderly citizens, and cases involving foreign tourists, reflect a serious public safety emergency. The court strongly criticized state authorities for failing to act effectively, questioning how administrations could remain passive spectators despite a visible threat to human life.
During the hearing, the bench expressed deep concern for vulnerable sections of society. In a stern observation, the court remarked that conditions on the ground appear to reflect a “Darwinian survival of the fittest,” where children, the elderly, and economically weaker citizens are left unprotected against aggressive stray dogs. It held that such circumstances expose a failure of governance and enforcement at the administrative level.
The Supreme Court further expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, linking the right to life with the right of citizens to move freely in public spaces without fear of dog attacks or physical harm. The court emphasized that the right to life extends beyond mere survival and includes safety, dignity, and freedom from persistent threats in everyday environments.
Reaffirming its earlier directive issued in November 2025, the court ordered that stray dogs must be removed from sensitive public locations, including schools, colleges, hospitals, bus terminals, railway stations, educational campuses, and sports complexes. The bench made it clear that the traditional Animal Birth Control framework based on the capture-sterilize-vaccinate-release model has been suspended for such areas. Instead, captured dogs must now be permanently relocated to government-established dedicated shelters and cannot be returned to public spaces.
The court also issued stringent nationwide directives to prevent further incidents. It mandated the establishment of at least one fully equipped Animal Birth Control center with trained veterinary professionals in every district. It further directed all local authorities to ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies medicines in hospitals to prevent avoidable deaths.
In a significant administrative measure, the Supreme Court assigned all High Courts across the country the responsibility of monitoring strict compliance with its directives in their respective states. Additionally, the court ordered that municipal and administrative officials implementing these directions must be provided protection from legal harassment or criminal prosecution for actions taken in good faith during enforcement.
The apex court concluded with a strong warning that any failure to comply with these directives would invite contempt of court proceedings against responsible officials, making them personally accountable for lapses in implementation.
About The Author
.jpg)
Comment List