Supreme Court refuses plea seeking clarification on stray dog euthanasia ruling

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an application filed by NGO Animals Are People Too seeking clarification on the court’s recent order permitting euthanasia of rabid, incurably ill and demonstrably dangerous stray dogs under statutory safeguards. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said the applicant could approach the concerned high courts, noting that high courts had already been directed to monitor implementation of the stray dog management framework.

The NGO argued that the May 19 judgment was allegedly being misinterpreted by authorities as permission for indiscriminate culling of stray dogs. During the hearing, advocate Anil Kumar Mishra referred to statements allegedly made by Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann regarding elimination of stray dogs and cited reports concerning removal of dogs from certain institutions. The bench observed that public statements or media reports could not become grounds for repeatedly revisiting or modifying the Supreme Court’s order.

The court declined to issue any fresh clarification and stated that parties with grievances could move the respective high courts. When the counsel submitted that the order was being misunderstood, Justice Vikram Nath remarked that the Supreme Court could not change its order merely because a public statement had been made by a Chief Minister. The counsel later sought permission to withdraw the application and approach the high court, after which the bench reiterated that it was not entertaining the plea.

The NGO had sought an express clarification that euthanasia could be carried out only in narrowly defined circumstances and strictly in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. It also sought directions to all state Directors General of Police to ensure that no stray dogs were unlawfully killed, poisoned or harmed in the name of implementing the Supreme Court’s order.

In its application, the NGO stated that the term “aggressive dog” had not been clearly defined under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 and argued that ordinary stray dogs could be arbitrarily labelled dangerous by local authorities. It requested that no dog should be declared aggressive without examination and recommendation by a committee comprising a government veterinary doctor, a representative of a recognised animal welfare organisation and a representative from the concerned local authority.

The Supreme Court’s May 19 judgment had permitted authorities to take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia, in cases involving rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous stray dogs in areas witnessing repeated attacks and public safety concerns. The bench had also refused to dilute earlier directions requiring removal of stray dogs from sensitive public spaces such as schools, hospitals, railway stations, airports and bus depots. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on November 17, 2026 after compliance reports are submitted by high courts.