“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” — Mahatma Gandhi
1. Introduction
The issue of stray dogs in India has long stood at the crossroads of public safety and animal welfare. Rising dog-bite incidents and rabies concerns highlight the risks to citizens, while constitutional and legal frameworks emphasise compassion for animals.
The Constitution under Article 21 has been judicially expanded to include the right to life and dignity of animals, as recognised in *Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014)*¹. Similarly, Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to show compassion to living creatures².
Statutory backing comes from the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the *Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (amended 2023)*³, which regulate humane stray dog management.
In this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s modified order of 22 August 2025⁴ directed that sterilised and vaccinated stray dogs be released back into their original areas, banned open feeding, and mandated municipal accountability nationwide, creating a balanced and humane framework.
2. Background of the Case
An earlier Supreme Court ruling in August 2025 mandated that stray dogs, once sterilised, should remain confined to shelters.
This approach was criticised as harsh and impractical, since India lacks the infrastructure to indefinitely house millions of strays.
Animal rights activists argued that shelter confinement violated the principles of humane treatment, while urban residents expressed fear over the rising number of dog-related injuries.
The Court, acknowledging both sides, decided to review and revise its stance.
3. Constitutional Provisions Related to Animals’ Right to Life in India
Article 51A(g) – Fundamental Duty
- It is the fundamental duty of every citizen “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.”
- This is the primary constitutional recognition of the duty towards animals, emphasizing compassion and welfare.
Article 48 – Directive Principle of State Policy
- The State is directed to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines.
- It specifically mentions protection of animals from cruelty and mandates the State to ensure their welfare.
Article 21 – Right to Life
- Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to all “persons.”
- The Supreme Court has interpreted this expansively to include protection of animals under the ambit of life, emphasizing that cruelty towards animals violates public morality and legal duty.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (Statutory Backing)
- While not directly part of the Constitution, this law complements constitutional provisions.
- It gives legal backing to protect animals from unnecessary suffering, abuse, and cruelty, aligning with Articles 48 and 51A(g).
Judicial Recognition
- The Indian judiciary has reinforced animal welfare, linking it to constitutional morality.
- In Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja (2014), the Supreme Court emphasized that animals have a right to live with dignity, and practices like cruelty or neglect are constitutionally unacceptable.
4. SC Stray Dogs Order: Before Modification (August 11, 2025)
Shelter Confinement
- The Court directed that all sterilised stray dogs must remain confined in shelters.
- Once sterilisation was completed, dogs were not to be released back into their original territories.
No Re-Release Policy
- The earlier Animal Birth Control (ABC) practice of returning sterilised and vaccinated dogs to their localities was stopped.
Focus on Public Safety
- The order was primarily designed to reduce dog-bite cases and rabies incidents, reflecting strong concern for human safety over animal rights.
Kerala-Centric Case
- The directive initially arose out of petitions from Kerala, where stray dog attacks had become a significant social and legal issue.
Lack of Clarity on Feeding
- The earlier order did not provide clear rules on feeding strays in public areas, leaving it open to interpretation.
Criticism from Animal Welfare Groups
Activists and organisations opposed the order, calling it “harsh, inhumane, and unworkable” because:
- India lacks sufficient shelter infrastructure to house lakhs of dogs.
- Confining dogs indefinitely violates the principle of humane treatment recognised under law and the Constitution.
5. SC Stray Dogs Order: After Modification (August 22, 2025)
Release After Sterilisation and Vaccination
- Stray dogs that are sterilised and vaccinated must be released back into their original localities.
- Exception: Dogs that are rabid or proven aggressive are not to be released.
Ban on Public Feeding
- Feeding strays in open public places has been prohibited.
- Municipal authorities must create designated feeding zones in each ward, with proper signage, helplines, and monitoring systems.
Nationwide Applicability
- What started as a Kerala-specific case has been extended across India.
- All states and union territories are required to follow this framework, making it a uniform national policy.
Municipal Responsibility
Civic bodies have been made primarily responsible for:
- Large-scale sterilisation drives
- Vaccination campaigns
- Setting up and maintaining feeding zones
NGOs and Petitioners’ Role
- Animal welfare NGOs and individual petitioners in the case were directed to deposit funds (₹25,000 by individuals and ₹2 lakh by NGOs).
- The money is earmarked for developing stray dog infrastructure.
Balance Between Rights and Risks
The Court explicitly moved away from its earlier “harsh” shelter-only order. It sought to balance:
- Animal rights → dogs should not be confined indefinitely, must be treated with compassion.
- Public safety → controlling rabies, reducing dog-bite incidents, and ensuring safer public spaces.
Safety vs. Animal Rights
- India reports an estimated 15–20 million stray dogs, with 1.5–2 million dog bite cases annually (NCRB, MoHFW data).
- Rabies remains a major concern, with India accounting for 36% of the world’s rabies deaths (WHO).
- Animal rights groups argue that killing or removal of dogs fails to solve the problem due to the “vacuum effect”.
Thus, the Court’s directive to shelter only rabid or aggressive dogs appears as a middle path.
6. Relevant Case Laws for Stray Dogs Order, 2025
- Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014) – Recognised animals’ right to life and dignity under Article 21.
- People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Union of India (2012) – Strengthened prohibition of animal suffering.
- State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) – Allowed Directive Principles to protect animals.
- Geeta Seshamani v. Union of India (2008) – Directed that sterilised and vaccinated dogs be released back.
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. PEST (2005) – Confirmed sterilise-and-release policy under ABC Rules.
- Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (2013) – Recognised species’ right to exist.
- Gauri Maulekhi v. Union of India (2017) – Linked animal welfare to fundamental duties under Article 51A(g).
Connection to 2025 Order:
- Nagaraja (2014) → established animal dignity.
- Geeta Seshamani (2008) → precedent for re-release.
- PEST (2005) → municipal duties.
- Mirzapur Moti Kureshi (2005) → animal protection via Directive Principles.
7. Our Responsibilities for Stray Dogs (As Citizens)
Follow Feeding Rules
- Do not feed stray dogs in open public places.
- Use designated feeding zones.
- Avoid nuisance or danger during feeding.
Support Sterilisation and Vaccination
- Cooperate with municipal drives.
- Inform authorities about unsterilised or unvaccinated strays.
- Promote awareness about humane control.
Show Compassion and Responsibility
- Treat strays with dignity and care.
- Report cruelty to AWBI or police.
- Adopt responsibly.
Cooperate with Authorities
- Respect SC and municipal guidelines.
- Encourage upkeep of feeding zones and sterilisation centres.
- Join civic awareness programs.
Financial and Social Contribution
- NGOs and individuals may contribute to infrastructure funds.
- Citizens can volunteer or donate to welfare initiatives.
8. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s 2025 order on stray dogs is a landmark attempt to balance compassion with caution. By allowing the release of sterilised and vaccinated dogs, creating regulated feeding zones, and holding municipalities accountable, the Court has shown that animal rights and public safety are not opposing goals but complementary responsibilities.
The real success of this framework will depend on how sincerely citizens, NGOs, and civic bodies work together to implement it. If followed in both spirit and practice, the order can pave the way for a humane, practical, and sustainable solution to one of India’s most persistent urban challenges—ensuring dignity for animals while protecting human lives.
9. References
i. The Constitution of India, art. 21.
ii. The Constitution of India, art. 48.
iii. The Constitution of India, art. 51A(g).
iv. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
v. The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (amended 2023).
vi. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014).
vii. PETA v. Union of India (2012).
viii. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005).
ix. Geeta Seshamani v. Union of India (2008).
x. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. PEST (2005).
xi. Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (2013).
xii. Gauri Maulekhi v. Union of India (2017).
xiii. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi.
xiv. In Re: Regulation of Stray Dogs in India, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 5 of 2025, Order dated Aug. 11, 2025 (SC).
xv. In Re: Regulation of Stray Dogs in India, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 5 of 2025, Modified Order dated Aug. 22, 2025 (SC).
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
