.
NEW DELHI: Holding that constitutional balance must tilt in favour of human life if it clashes with welfare of animals, Supreme Court Tuesday strongly reaffirmed its Nov 2025 order to remove stray dogs from public institutions and spaces – hospitals, schools, colleges, playgrounds – noting that dog bite cases have assumed an “alarming proportion”. It directed govt to take all legally permissible measures to control the problem, including euthanasia in cases involving rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous dogs.
.
“The right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution …stands at the highest pedestal of constitutional protection, and casts upon the State an affirmative, non-negotiable and continuing duty to take all expedient, effective, preventive and legally permissible measures…to secure citizens against threats to life and safety arising from stray dog attacks,” a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria said.Can’t allow survival of fittest to govern civic lifeThe bench said compassion for animal life, howsoever important, cannot be interpreted in a manner that compels citizens to endure recurring threats to their own lives, safety and bodily integrity. SC not only rejected the impassioned plea of dog lovers to modify its earlier order against stray dogs, but also passed a slew of directions for implementation of its order and Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, with a clear message that local and state govt officials would be liable for contempt for non-compliance. Stray dogs do not possess an indefeasible or absolute right to occupy spaces or premises, irrespective of their nature or use, it said. Proceedings in the case started in Aug last year when SC took suo motu cognisance of a TOIreport, “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay the Price”. “This court cannot also remain oblivious to the harsh and deeply disturbing ground realities emerging from various parts of the country, where young children have been mauled, elderly persons have been attacked, ordinary citizens have been left vulnerable in public spaces and even international travellers have fallen victim to such incidents,” the bench said. “If such conditions are permitted to continue unchecked, the inevitable consequence may lead to a regression towards a state where the Darwinian theory of evolution, namely, the survival of the fittest would effectively govern civic life and public spaces. Such a situation would be wholly incompatible with a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law,” it said. Referring to ‘human vs animal conflict’, it said this court must also emphatically observe that while considerations pertaining to animal welfare and protection of sentient beings constitute matters of undeniable constitutional, statutory and moral significance, such considerations cannot be permitted to eclipse or subordinate the paramount obligation of the State to safeguard human life. “When safety and lives of human beings are weighed against the interests and welfare of sentient beings, the constitutional balance must necessarily and unequivocally tilt in favour of the preservation and protection of human life,” it said. The bench said the presence of stray dogs in public institutions poses serious safety and health hazards. It said any animal welfare organisation that intends to take care of strays has to give an undertaking to take responsibility in case of any dog bite. Rejecting the plea that ABC Rules mandate continued presence or reintroduction of stray dogs in public places, the bench said it would create a direct, unavoidable and irreconcilable conflict between statutory interpretation and constitutional imperative of ensuring public safety in such environments. “The scheme of ABC Rules, 2023, is regulatory in character, intended to facilitate humane management of stray dog populations, including their control, sterilisation, vaccination and regulated presence in appropriate public areas, and cannot be elevated to confer a perpetual or unqualified right of existence upon such animals in every location where they may be found, particularly in spaces where considerations of public safety, health and institutional functioning assume significance,” it said. As per estimates given in court, the stray dog population has risen exponentially, from an estimated 2.5 crore in early 2000s to nearly 8 crore at present. The court said ABC Rules have remained deficient in execution. Inconsistent implementation of sterilisation and vaccination plans have resulted in an unchecked increase in the stray dog population and a corresponding rise in incidents of dog bites and related hazards. It also upheld standard operation procedures framed by Animal Welfare Board which suggests inclusion of additional categories of public places such as religious sites, parks, tourist locations and other similar areas within the ambit of apex court’s order. The court referred to many incidents of dog bites, including at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, which has witnessed at least 31 incidents since Jan 1. “Had states and UTs acted with foresight in implementing the mandate of the ABC framework from its start… the present situation would not have assumed such alarming proportions,” it said. “The right to live with dignity under Article 21 necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack or exposure to life-threatening events such as dog bites in public areas,” it said. Go to Source
