SC Modifies Stray Order and Issues Pan-India Guidelines on Dogs

Spread love

A two-judge bench transfers all stray dog matters to itself, directs municipalities to set up dedicated feeding spaces, regulates release of captured dogs, and asks NGOs and pet lovers to contribute to shelter funds

By TRH News Desk

NEW DELHI, August 22, 2025 — The Supreme Court has attempted to bring clarity—and perhaps discipline—to India’s long-running stray dog conflict, issuing fresh directions that will now apply across the country. In an order delivered by a two-judge bench, the Court has consolidated all pending matters before itself, underscoring the need for a uniform, pan-India approach rather than piecemeal rulings by different high courts.

The Court’s intervention marks a critical moment in a debate that has sharply divided society. On one side are animal lovers and NGOs who argue for compassion and rehabilitation; on the other, residents and municipal authorities struggling with rising cases of dog bites and fatalities. The “Star order” of earlier years, which had banned the release of picked-up strays, triggered widespread protests by dog lovers and legal challenges from municipalities caught in an impossible bind.

The latest directions attempt a balance. Municipal authorities must continue to pick up and shelter strays, but the blanket prohibition on their release has been kept in abeyance. Dogs can be released back, except those suffering from rabies or showing proven aggressive behaviour. Importantly, the Court has ordered the creation of dedicated feeding zones in every municipal ward. Under no condition are stray dogs to be fed on public streets; any violation, it warned, would invite legal proceedings.

For perhaps the first time, the Court has also introduced a cost-sharing principle. Individuals who approached the court on behalf of strays must deposit ₹25,000 each, while NGOs are required to contribute ₹2 lakh, earmarked for dog shelters. This move signals the Court’s intent to bind advocacy with responsibility—a recognition that compassion must also be backed with resources.

Yet the order is not free from critique. By centralising the matter, the Court has asserted judicial primacy over what is fundamentally an administrative and civic challenge. Critics argue that the focus should also be on strengthening municipal capacity for sterilisation drives, vaccination, and waste management, without which stray populations will remain unmanageable. Dog lovers, meanwhile, view the restrictions on street feeding as a criminalisation of empathy.

Still, the Court’s calibrated directions may mark a turning point. By insisting on structured feeding zones, linking NGOs to funding responsibilities, and balancing public safety with animal welfare, the Supreme Court has showed that India’s stray dog problem requires neither sentimentality nor brutality—but a workable, national framework.