New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Friday modified its earlier order on the handling of stray dogs, clarifying that captured canines will be released after sterilisation and immunisation, except those suffering from rabies or displaying aggressive behaviour. This marks a significant change from the August 11 directive of a two-judge bench, which had barred the release of strays and warned of contempt proceedings for any laxity. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria also expanded the scope of the case beyond Delhi-NCR, directing that it be treated as a pan-India matter. Notices have been issued to all states and Union territories, as well as relevant departments, to work towards a uniform national policy for stray dog management. The bench also decided to transfer similar cases pending in high courts to itself. The court reiterated that civic bodies in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad must carry out mass capture of stray dogs and set up shelters or pounds for their relocation. Progress reports on the creation of such infrastructure must be submitted before the court. However, in a key modification, the bench ruled that only rabid or aggressive dogs should be excluded from release after sterilisation and immunisation. Another significant directive requires municipal bodies to designate specific feeding zones for stray dogs within each ward. Feeding strays in public places has been strictly prohibited, with violations liable to legal action. Municipal authorities have also been asked to set up helplines to report such violations. The bench further emphasised that no individual or organisation should obstruct municipal officials in capturing stray dogs. In cases of obstruction, public servants may initiate proceedings, and NGOs or individuals found guilty of interference could face a penalty of ₹25,000. At the same time, the court clarified that animal lovers wishing to adopt strays can apply to municipal corporations. The earlier August 11 order, passed by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had mandated the immediate rounding up of all stray dogs across Delhi-NCR and their confinement in large shelters, barring any release back onto the streets. This sweeping direction faced sharp criticism from animal welfare groups, who called it cruel and inconsistent with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. Responding to widespread criticism and fresh petitions, Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai reassigned the case to the three-judge bench. During the August 14 hearing, the larger bench expressed strong displeasure at the Delhi government and civic bodies for failing to enforce their own regulatory framework, noting that both human safety and animal welfare were being neglected. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, highlighted alarming cases of child mutilation and fatal dog bites, stressing the need for urgent intervention. He urged that while dogs should not be killed, they must be separated, sterilised and treated humanely to address the growing public health risk. On the other side, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sidharth Luthra and others representing animal welfare groups argued that the August 11 order was unlawful and impractical. They contended that the ABC Rules mandate sterilisation and vaccination, followed by returning the dogs to their localities, not permanent confinement in shelters. They also cautioned that mass removals without adequate infrastructure would inevitably lead to cruelty. The matter will continue to be heard as the court seeks to evolve a uniform national policy on stray dog management.
