Key Points:
The SC has directed all government institutes to remove stray dogs from their premises into shelters.
It further ordered officials to remove all relocate all stray animals from roads and highways.
Many activists and animal-lovers have raised their voices against the latest order, calling it vague, excessive, and impractical.
The Supreme Court directed all government institutions – schools and universities, hospitals and clinics, offices, sports complexes, bus stands, railway stations, etc. – to remove all stray dogs from their premises. The judgement was issued by the court on Friday, 7 November 2025, taking cognizance of the “alarming rise of dog-bite incidents” across the country.
The court further directed institutes to fence their properties to prevent stray dogs from entering, and to vaccinate, sterilise and relocate all removed stray dogs to shelters. It clarified that the strays must not be released in the same locations.
In addition to orders mentioned above, the court specified guidelines to ensure its orders are followed, for rabies treatment and awareness, and for emergency protocols in case of bites.
The court further directed that all stray animals – cows, dogs, etc. – be removed from roads and highways and shifted to gaushalas or shelters. It warned all State and UT Chief Secretaries of being held personally accountable in case of non-compliance.
It refused to here petitions challenging the interim order, instead scheduling them for a later date.
The conditions were laid down by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria. This was the latest hearing in the Delhi stray dogs case. The matter was first taken up by the court suo moto in July 2025, following media reports of stray dogs attacking children and bites causing rabies.
In August 2025, a single-judge bench had ordered all dogs in the NCR to be rounded up and shifted to shelters. But after mass protests, the current three-judge bench took up the case and disposed of the earlier order. The bench issued fresh orders to release dogs back to the localities they were picked up from after vaccination and sterilisation. It extended the purview of the case nationwide.
At the time, the bench had also issued a directive banning public feeding and to designate specific spaces for the activity. On 3 November 2025, the court took note of employees feeding stray dogs within government premises in violation of its earlier directive. “We will be issuing directions with respect to government institutions and public sector undertakings where employees are feeding the dogs, and supporting and encouraging stray dogs in the area,” the bench had remarked.
This culminated in the directives issued by the court in the latest hearing.
See Also: Caught between fear and compassion: The Indian Supreme Court’s stray dog dilemma
Many activists and animal-lovers have raised their voices against the latest order.
BJP leader and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi said that the directive was “as bad or even worse” than the original judgement which the current bench had disposed of. She pointed to logistical and practical issues within the order itself, arguing that “if this were possible, it would have been done.” Gandhi is the founder of People for Animals, India’s biggest animal rights organisation.
Nanita Sharma, a Supreme Court lawyer, also criticised the judgement. She said that relocation is incompatible with the Animal Birth Rules (ABC) 2023, but the action is being rationalised. “We are respecting the order because it is from the Supreme Court,” she said.
Gauri Malekha, Trustee at People for Animals, said she was “shocked to hear the orders that were passed.” She said that the orders were vague, excessive, and impractical. The bench “assembled, read the order and did not hear any party.”
“Some of the larger institutions look after their dogs very well,” Malekha said, arguing that such a sweeping order would unfairly impact pre-existing systems. She added that animal rights organisations had presented a detailed plan to tackle the issues raised by the court and submitted it to the court’s impartial advisor, but it never reached the bench.
“This is actually unfortunate. Without listening to all parties, just offhandedly asking for dogs to be removed is only going to aggravate the problem. While it might seem like a solution on paper, it’s going to be a nightmare in the country,” she concluded. [Rh]
Suggested Reading:
