Stray dogs case: A question of implementing SC order with ‘compassion’ and without inflicting ‘unnecessary pain’

The Supreme Court’s direction on Friday (November 7, 2025) to municipal authorities to “remove” stray dogs from public places and shift them to shelters for sterilisation and vaccination does not examine whether these agencies have the infrastructure or space to implement the order with compassion and without inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on the animals.

Article 51A(g) mandates that it is the fundamental duty of every Indian citizen to “have compassion for living creatures”. Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 requires “persons having charge of animals” to ensure their well-being and prevent causing them “unnecessary pain or suffering”.

“All living creatures have inherent dignity and a right to live peacefully and right to protect their well-being which encompasses protection from beating, kicking, over-driving, over-loading, tortures, pain and suffering, etc,” the Supreme Court had observed in its 2014 judgment in Animal Welfare Board versus A. Nagaraja on the practice of Jallikattu.

In Friday’s order, the Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath noted how administrative indifference over the past years had led to “preventable” instances of stray dog attacks on innocent persons, undermining the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and safety under Article 21. The court noted that implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules had been “ineffective, to say the least, across jurisdictions”.

Exactly 10 years ago, in November 2015, the Supreme Court had held it was the “sacrosanct duty” of local authorities to ensure that there were enough facilities, including dog shelters.

“It is the duty of all municipal corporations to provide infrastructure as mandated in the statute [1960 Act] and the Rules. Once that is done, we are disposed to think for the present that a balance between compassion to dogs and the lives of human beings, which is appositely called a glorious gift of nature, may harmoniously co-exist,” a two-judge Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra (now retired) had observed in Animal Welfare Board of India vs People For Elimination Of Stray Troubles in 2015.

The court had ordered municipal authorities in 2015 to ensure the availability of dog vans with ramps for capture and transportation, drivers and dog catchers for these vans, ambulance-cum-clinical vans as mobile centres for sterilisation and immunisation, incinerators for disposal of carcasses, and periodic repairs of shelters.

However, the order appears to have been followed in breach, as suggested by the “alarming increase” in stray dog attacks.