Stray Dogs Have No Absolute Right To Inhabit Schools, Hospitals Or Restricted Institutional Areas: Supreme Court

"Statutory scheme underlying the PCA Act, 1960, and the Rules framed thereunder, namely, the ABC Rules, 2023, does not mandate, nor can it be interpreted to require, the continued presence or compulsory reintroduction of stray dogs within institutional premises or other restricted-access areas," Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, held that stray dogs do not possess an absolute or indefeasible right to occupy or remain within sensitive institutional spaces such as schools, hospitals, and transport hubs.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria observed that the statutory framework for animal birth control must be interpreted harmoniously with the constitutional mandate to protect human life and safety under Article 21. The Court emphasized that while animal welfare is a significant moral and legal concern, it cannot eclipse the fundamental right of citizens to live in a safe and hazard-free environment.

The proceedings originated from a suo moto writ petition initiated by the Court following alarming news reports of stray dog attacks on children and vulnerable citizens. The matter expanded to include several interlocutory applications filed by animal welfare organizations and municipal bodies across the country. These applications sought modification or stay of earlier judicial directions that mandated the removal of stray dogs from "institutional areas" and prohibited their re-release into the same locations, alleging that such directions were inconsistent with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.

The primary question before the Court was whether public institutions like schools, hospitals, and railway stations fall within the definition of "locality" under Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023, for the purpose of re-releasing sterilized dogs. The Court was also called upon to determine whether its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution could be invoked to supplement statutory gaps in the interest of public safety and whether the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) were legally valid.

ABC Rules Cannot Confer Vested Rights For Dogs To Occupy Sensitive Spaces

The Court observed that Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules, 2023, which classifies "street dogs" as those living on the street or within a gated campus, is merely a classificatory provision for regulatory purposes. It held that such a classification cannot be elevated to confer a perpetual or unqualified right of existence upon animals in every location. The bench noted that the rule-making authority could not have contemplated a situation where stray dogs are permitted to inhabit sensitive premises like hospitals or schools, where hygiene and safety are of paramount importance.

"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."

Interpreting 'Locality' In Harmony With The Parent PCA Act

The bench underscored that Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, which mandates the release of dogs to the "same place or locality" from where they were captured, must be read in consonance with Section 2(i) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960. The parent Act defines "street" as public spaces like roads and lanes to which the public has unhindered access. Consequently, the Court held that the mandate of re-release cannot be extended to private premises or restricted institutional campuses, as doing so would disregard the clear legislative intent of the primary statute.

"The term 'same place or locality' must therefore be confined to public streets and other analogous open-access areas to which the public has unhindered access... without compromising public safety or institutional integrity."

Article 142 Invoked To Balance Human Safety And Animal Welfare

The Court extensively discussed its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It reiterated the principles laid down in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, stating that while it cannot "supplant" substantive law, it can certainly "iron out the creases" to do complete justice. The bench held that its directions to exclude institutional areas from the re-release mandate were a valid exercise of jurisdiction aimed at bridging gaps where the statutory framework fails to address emergent public safety crises.

"Prohibitions or limitations contained in ordinary laws cannot, ipso facto, act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142... The power under Article 142 is at an entirely different level and of a different quality."

State Bears Affirmative Duty To Protect Citizens Under Article 21

The judgment took judicial notice of the "staggering dimensions" of the stray dog menace, citing reports of over 2.63 lakh dog-bite cases in Tamil Nadu and over 2 lakh cases in Karnataka within the first four months of 2026 alone. The Court held that the State cannot remain a passive spectator to a public health emergency. It emphasized that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 encompasses the right to move freely in public spaces without a constant apprehension of physical harm or exposure to life-threatening attacks.

"When the 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."

Entities Claiming Rights Over Strays Must Accept Tortious Liability

In a significant move to ensure accountability, the Court addressed the role of NGOs and student-led bodies that feed and maintain stray dogs within campuses. It observed that the assertion of a right to protect animals cannot be divorced from the responsibility for their actions. The Court directed that any group wishing to maintain or feed stray dogs within institutional premises must file an undertaking or affidavit accepting tortious liability for any injury or harm caused by such dogs.

"The assertion of rights or interests in favour of such animals cannot operate in isolation, divorced from the corresponding responsibility to safeguard human life and safety."

High Courts To Monitor Implementation Via Suo Moto Petitions

Finding the progress of State authorities "sporadic and under-funded," the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to register suo moto writ petitions to monitor compliance with its directions. This "decentralized continuous judicial oversight" is intended to be more effective than centralized monitoring. High Courts are empowered to initiate contempt proceedings against erring officials of municipal departments or state administrations who fail to establish functional ABC centres or secure institutional premises.

The Court dismissed all applications challenging the removal of dogs from institutional areas and upheld the SOPs issued by the AWBI. It directed States to ensure at least one fully functional ABC Centre in every district and ordered the NHAI to deploy specialized transport vehicles for the removal of stray animals from National Highways. The High Courts have been tasked with overseeing the "Continuing Mandamus" and must submit consolidated reports to the Supreme Court every four months, with the first report due in November 2026.

Date of Decision: May 19, 2026