A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the unchecked population of dogs has become increasingly feral, and such animals have no place in areas densely populated by human beings, owing to the serious threat they pose to public safety. File.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Madras High Court has taken up a suo motu, a public interest litigation (PIL) petition to ensure strict implementation in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry the recent orders passed by the Supreme Court for protecting people from stray dogs.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan will be hearing the case on Monday (June 22, 2026). The Chief Secretaries and secretaries to the Animal Husbandry, Health and Municipal Administration departments in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry have been arrayed as respondents to the case.
On Friday (May 19, 2026), a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that “unchecked population of dogs has become increasingly feral, and such animals have no place in areas densely populated by human beings owing to the serious threat they pose to public safety.”
The Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria also wrote: “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… 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.”
The Bench further observed: “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. 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.”
In their order, the judges had taken note of a news report titled ‘In just four months of 2026’, Tamil Nadu records 2.63 lakh dog bites, 17 deaths’ published in The Hindu on May 6, 2026 and expressed shock over 6.25 lakh dog bite cases and 34 deaths due to dog bites having been reported in the State in 2025.
Referring to such alarming statistics from other States too, the judges attributed the reason for the problem reaching such a high magnitude to the failure of the State governments and union territories to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework effectively even after two decades since its formulation in 2001.
The top court held that the stray dogs picked up from premises such as educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands and railway stations, for sterilisation, do not possess an indefeasible or absolute right to be re-released in the same places from where they were picked up and that they should be transferred only to animal shelters.
The court also upheld the validity of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India on November 27, 2025, expanding the definition of the term ‘institutional premises’ to public spaces, such as religious places, parks, tourist sites and recreational areas.
The Bench further impressed upon the need for establishing a sufficient number of ABC centres in every district across the country, appointment of enough number of veterinarians and other trained staff, conduct of regular sterilisation and vaccination programmes, removal of stray dogs from institutional premises, creation of helpline numbers to report dog bites, a mechanism for adoption of stray dogs and so on.
Since it would be difficult for the top court to monitor the implementation of its orders at a pan India level, it requested the High Courts to take up suo motu PIL petitions. The High Courts were given liberty “to expand or tailor the scope of such directions, as may be necessary to address local conditions and exigencies, without in any manner diluting the tenor and intent of the directions” issued by the Supreme Court.
Published – June 21, 2026 02:25 pm IST
