Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

“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