MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

“Your Officers Don’t Read Newspapers?”: Supreme Court Summons Chief Secretaries of States/UTs for Non-Compliance with ABC Rules in Stray Dog Case

27 October 2025 12:01 PM

By: sayum


"Once they are aware, they should come forward": SC lashes out over failure to file affidavits on animal birth control compliance - Today, On October 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in the ongoing suo motu case titled In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, came down heavily on the non-compliance by several States and Union Territories with its earlier directions concerning the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.

A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria directed that Chief Secretaries of all defaulting States and Union Territories, except West Bengal and Telangana, must personally appear before the Court on November 3, 2025, and explain their failure to file compliance affidavits.
“Notices Were Issued… Everyone Has Reported This” – Supreme Court Questions Silence of Defaulting States
The apex court, expressing displeasure, noted that only West Bengal, Telangana, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had submitted affidavits as directed by the Court on August 22, 2025. The rest had not filed any response, nor was there any representation on their behalf during the hearing.
Justice Vikram Nath sternly observed:
"Continuous incidents are happening and the image of the country is being shown as down in the eyes of foreign nations. We are also reading news reports... Why have your officers not acted? Your officers don’t read newspapers or social media? Everyone has reported this…"
Justice Nath further asked Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave to explain why the NCT of Delhi had failed to file a compliance affidavit, despite the matter being extensively reported and court notices being served.
"Why has NCT not filed affidavit? Chief Secretary to come up with an explanation… Otherwise, cost may be imposed and coercive steps taken... All Chief Secretaries to remain present on November 3, else we will hold the Court in the auditorium," he warned.
From Rabies Risk to Pan-India Compliance – How the Matter Evolved
The Court is monitoring the case In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, registered suo motu based on a Times of India report highlighting the increasing risk of stray dog attacks and rabies, especially among children.
On July 28, 2025, a two-judge bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan took suo motu cognizance and, on August 11, passed sweeping directions ordering authorities in Delhi, Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad to pick up all stray dogs and shift them to shelters, expressly barring their release.
However, these directions triggered legal and administrative concerns, as they appeared to contradict the ABC Rules, 2023, which mandate that sterilized and vaccinated dogs must be released back to the same locality, except where the dogs are rabid, suspected to be rabid, or aggressive.
Subsequently, on August 13, the matter was reassigned to a three-judge bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath. On August 22, this bench stayed the earlier direction prohibiting release of dogs, holding:
"The direction given in the order dated 11th August, 2025, prohibiting the release of the treated and vaccinated dogs seems to be too harsh."
Invoking Rule 11(9) of the ABC Rules, the Court clarified that picked-up dogs must be released back in the same area post-treatment, unless exceptions apply. It also prohibited public feeding of stray dogs in general areas and directed the establishment of dedicated feeding zones.
Nationwide Scope and Compliance Framework Ordered by Supreme Court
Taking note of the increasing frequency of dog bite incidents, the bench expanded the scope of the case to a pan-India level. It impleaded:
•    All State and UT Governments
•    Secretaries of Animal Husbandry Departments
•    Municipal Corporations and Local Bodies
These authorities were instructed to file affidavits outlining the steps taken to implement the ABC Rules. The Court also expressed its intent to transfer similar matters pending before various High Courts to itself to evolve a uniform national policy on stray dog control.
Furthermore, it reiterated that no person or organisation may obstruct the local authorities from executing their duties under the ABC Rules.
Non-Compliance to Invite Coercive Action; Supreme Court Demands Accountability
By summoning Chief Secretaries of the defaulting jurisdictions and threatening coercive measures, the Supreme Court has signalled that non-compliance with its orders in matters affecting public safety and constitutional governance will not be tolerated.
The next hearing is scheduled for November 3, 2025, and will likely shape the roadmap for a nationwide enforcement mechanism on stray dog control in compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates.
Case Title: In Re: 'City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price', SMW(C) No. 5/2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice NV Anjaria
Date of Order: 27 October 2025

Latest Legal News