Stray Dogs Cannot Claim Right to Re-entry in Schools and Hospitals, Supreme Court Holds
A three-judge bench upholds pan-India directions barring re-release of stray dogs into institutional premises, reading ABC Rules 2023 harmoniously with the parent statute and Article 21.
The Supreme Court has refused to modify, recall or stay its earlier directions requiring municipal authorities to remove stray dogs from educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations and to prohibit their re-release at those same locations. In a judgment delivered on 19 May 2026 in In Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” (2026 INSC 506), a bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that Rule 11(19) of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 which ordinarily requires sterilised and vaccinated dogs to be returned to the locality from which they were captured does not extend to sensitive institutional premises.
The Court grounded its reasoning in a purposive reading of the ABC Rules alongside the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and in the constitutional obligation to protect the right to life under Article 21. Monitoring of compliance has been transferred to all High Courts, with a consolidated report due before this Court on 17 November 2026.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
The proceedings originated as a suo motu writ petition taken up on the basis of news reports about escalating stray animal incidents across the country. The Court had previously issued directions on 11 August 2025 and 22 August 2025, and then issued a comprehensive set of pan-India directions on 7 November 2025 (reported at (2026) 1 SCC 774). Those November directions, set out in Paragraph 25 of that order, required municipal bodies to forthwith remove every stray dog found within the precincts of educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations, shift them to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination, and expressly prohibited their re-release at the same locations.
Following that order, a large number of interlocutory applications were filed by animal welfare organisations, associations and individuals. Some sought modification, clarification, vacation, recall or stay of the November 2025 directions. Others supported those directions and sought their extension to gated housing societies, parks and other public spaces. The present judgment disposes of both sets of applications.
The Core Statutory Conflict: Rule 11(19) and the Re-release Mandate
The principal argument advanced by applicants seeking modification was that the November 2025 directions directly contravened Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023, which mandates that sterilised and vaccinated dogs “shall be released at the same place or locality from where they were captured.” Counsel contended that this requirement is a core component of the statutory scheme, not merely procedural, and that any direction mandating non-release at the original site is inconsistent with and derogatory to the express provisions of the Rules.
It was further argued that the Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release model is the only scientifically validated and humane method of managing stray dog populations, and that removing dogs from a given territory creates a “vacuum effect” leading to migration of unsterilised and unvaccinated dogs into the vacated area, thereby increasing territorial conflicts and the risk of rabies. Reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench judgment in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr. (1962 SCC OnLine SC 37) for the proposition that Article 142 cannot be exercised to issue directions plainly inconsistent with express statutory provisions.
On the other side, applicants supporting the directions argued that Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules, 2023, which classifies “street dogs or community owned dogs” as those living on streets or within gated campuses, is merely a classificatory provision and confers no perpetual right of habitation. They further contended that the term “locality” in Rule 11(19) must be read in light of the definition of “street” under Section 2(i) of the PCA Act, 1960, which confines the expression to public roads, lanes, passages and open spaces to which the public has access — a definition that does not extend to controlled institutional premises.
The Court's Statutory Reasoning
The Court accepted the harmonious construction advanced by the supporting applicants. It held that Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules, 2023 is descriptive and classificatory in nature, not declaratory of any enforceable entitlement. A classification provision, the Court said, cannot be construed as a source of enforceable rights that overrides considerations of public safety or institutional integrity, particularly where such an interpretation would defeat the object and purpose of the PCA Act, 1960 and the ABC Rules, 2023 themselves.
On the inclusion of “gated campus” within Rule 7(2), the Court held that the rule-making authority could not have contemplated a situation where stray dogs are permitted to inhabit sensitive institutional premises such as hospitals, schools, colleges, sports complexes and airports. The expression “gated campus” must be understood in a limited and contextual sense and cannot be expansively construed to cover all categories of controlled-access institutional spaces, particularly those where safety, hygiene and regulated activity are of paramount importance.
Turning to Rule 11(19), the Court held that the expression “same place or locality” must be read in light of the definition of “street” under Section 2(i) of the PCA Act, 1960. That definition limits the expression to public spaces such as roads, lanes, squares, courts, alleys, passages and open spaces to which the public has access. The Court held that this statutory definition provides an important interpretative guide and that the expression “same place or locality” in Rule 11(19) cannot be construed to extend to private premises, institutional campuses or controlled-access spaces such as hospitals, colleges and similar establishments. To hold otherwise, the Court found, would render the regulatory framework internally inconsistent and operationally unworkable.
The Court therefore held that stray dogs found within educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, airports, bus stands and railway stations do not fall within the classification of “street dogs” or “community owned dogs” under Rule 7(2) read with Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023, insofar as those provisions relate to re-release obligations. The November 2025 directions were affirmed as being in consonance with a proper, purposive and harmonious interpretation of the governing statutory framework.
Article 142 and the Limits of Plenary Power
The Court also addressed the submission that the November 2025 directions exceeded the permissible scope of Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It surveyed the line of authority from Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India ((1991) 4 SCC 584) through Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India ((1998) 4 SCC 409) to Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan ((2023) 14 SCC 231).
From Union Carbide Corporation, the Court drew the principle that prohibitions or limitations contained in ordinary laws cannot, ipso facto, act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142, and that the power under Article 142 is “at an entirely different level and of a different quality.” From Supreme Court Bar Association, it noted that Article 142 being curative in nature cannot be used to “supplant” substantive law or to build a new edifice by ignoring express statutory provisions. From Shilpa Sailesh, it drew the synthesis: the exercise of power under Article 142(1) is prohibited only when the exercise would pass an order plainly and expressly barred by statutory provisions of substantive law based on fundamental considerations of general or specific public policy.
Having already concluded that the November 2025 directions are consistent with a proper reading of the ABC Rules, 2023, the Court held that the Article 142 question did not strictly arise. The directions were not in conflict with any express statutory prohibition rooted in fundamental public policy. The Court further observed that the present proceedings arise from suo motu jurisdiction, which is sui generis in nature and is invoked to address systemic issues with wide-ranging consequences for the public at large. In such proceedings, the focus shifts from adjudication of individual grievances to the preservation of collective rights and the prevention of systemic harm.
Financial and Logistical Objections Considered
Applicants seeking modification had placed considerable emphasis on the infrastructural and financial burden of implementing the directions. It was submitted that there are over 15,46,941 educational institutions in India, and even on a conservative estimate of approximately 10 dogs per institution, the directions would entail the relocation and permanent housing of over 1.5 crore dogs from educational institutions alone.
Counsel contended that accommodating such a population would necessitate the establishment of more than 77,000 shelters, even on a conservative estimate of 200 dogs per facility, along with the acquisition of thousands of acres of land. Municipal bodies, it was argued, are already functioning under severe financial constraints and cannot meet even their existing revenue-expenditure obligations from internal sources.
It was also contended that in the absence of adequate infrastructure, the combined effect of mandatory removal, prohibition on re-release and lack of sheltering capacity may place municipal authorities in situations of practical impossibility, creating a real risk of unlawful practices including culling or mistreatment of community dogs.
The Court considered these submissions but did not treat them as a basis for modifying the core directions. The judgment addresses the financial and logistical concerns through the directions issued in Part III, which require States and Union Territories to undertake capacity-building measures including training of personnel, augmentation of veterinary services, strengthening of vaccination drives and creation of adequate shelter facilities in coordination with relevant departments.
Additional Directions Issued
Beyond affirming the November 2025 directions, the Court issued several further directions. In areas where the population of stray dogs has assumed alarming proportions and where incidents of dog bites or aggressive attacks have become frequent, the concerned authorities may, subject to assessment by qualified veterinary experts and strictly in accordance with the PCA Act, 1960, the ABC Rules, 2023 and other applicable statutory protocols, take such measures as may be legally permissible, including euthanasia in cases involving rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous or aggressive dogs.
The Court also directed that officers and officials of municipal authorities, Panchayati Raj institutions, local bodies and concerned departments who implement the Court's directions in good faith shall be entitled to due protection. No First Information Report, criminal complaint or coercive proceedings shall ordinarily be initiated against such officers in respect of actions bona fide undertaken for implementing the directions, save where a prima facie case of mala fides, gross abuse of authority or actions wholly outside the directions is made out.
The NHAI was directed to formulate and implement a comprehensive and time-bound mechanism for addressing the presence of stray cattle and other animals on National Highways and National Expressways, including deployment of specialised transport vehicles, creation or earmarking of holding and shelter facilities, and entering into arrangements with animal welfare organisations and gaushalas.
The Court declined to extend the directions to gated housing societies, parks and other residential spaces at this stage, though it noted that applicants supporting the directions had urged such expansion.
Transfer of Monitoring to High Courts
The Court held that decentralised continuous judicial oversight would be far more efficacious than exclusive centralised monitoring by the Supreme Court. The issues are inherently fact-specific, regionally varied and require sustained supervision at the grassroots level.
All High Courts were directed to register a suo motu writ petition in the name and style “In Re: Compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 5 of 2025” as a continuing mandamus, to be placed before a Division Bench. The Registry of the Supreme Court was directed to transmit copies of the present order and the earlier orders dated 11 August 2025, 22 August 2025 and 7 November 2025 to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts.
High Courts were given liberty to expand or tailor the scope of the directions to address local conditions and exigencies, without diluting the tenor and intent of the Supreme Court's directions. Continued failure or deliberate non-compliance may render erring officials liable to contempt proceedings before the jurisdictional High Court.
Chief Secretaries and Secretaries of relevant departments of all States and Union Territories were directed to file updated affidavits of compliance before the respective jurisdictional High Courts on or before 7 August 2026. The Union of India and NHAI were similarly directed to file compliance affidavits before the jurisdictional High Courts within the same period. High Courts were directed to compile and forward a consolidated report to the Supreme Court every four months, with the first such report to be placed on record at least one week before the next date of hearing.
Order
The interlocutory applications seeking modification, clarification, vacation, recall and stay of the directions issued vide order dated 7 November 2025 were dismissed. The directions contained in that order, particularly Direction (E) requiring removal of stray dogs from institutional areas and prohibiting their re-release at the same locations, were affirmed and reiterated. Additional directions were issued regarding capacity-building, euthanasia in specified circumstances, protection of implementing officials, and NHAI's obligations on highways. Monitoring of compliance was transferred to all jurisdictional High Courts, with each High Court directed to register a suo motu writ petition as a continuing mandamus. The matter is listed before the Supreme Court on 17 November 2026 for receiving consolidated compliance reports from the High Courts.