New Delhi: In a major relief for animal welfare groups, the Supreme Court on Friday modified its earlier 11 August directive on Delhi-NCR stray dogs, allowing their release back to original territories after sterilisation and vaccination. Only dogs suffering from rabies or showing violent behaviour will be kept away.
The ruling, delivered by a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, came after widespread backlash against the earlier order of rounding up all stray dogs into shelters.
The top court further directed municipal bodies to set up designated feeding zones in every ward, warning that feeding in random public places will not be allowed. Dedicated helplines are to be launched for reporting violations. The bench also made it clear that no individual or NGO can obstruct authorities in carrying out these directions.
Supreme Court allows release of stray dogs post immunisation & sterilisation; directs MCD to create feeding spaces. Petitioner calls it a “balanced judgment” benefiting dogs and public safety.
🎥: PTI#StrayDog #SupremeCourt #MCD pic.twitter.com/CCO2nOXW6R
— Afternoon Voice (@Afternoon_Voice) August 22, 2025
The issue, however, has now gone beyond Delhi-NCR. The bench noted that stray dog cases are pending before several high courts and ordered their transfer to the Supreme Court to ensure a uniform nationwide decision. The matter will be reviewed again in eight weeks, with civic bodies asked to submit compliance reports.
In a stern warning to activists, the bench ruled that anyone filing intervention applications must prove claims through affidavits. Individuals seeking impleadment will have to deposit ₹25,000, while NGOs must deposit ₹2 lakh, with funds channelled towards dog shelter infrastructure.
Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, had argued that uncontrolled stray dog populations pose a serious health risk, citing WHO data that 36% of global rabies cases occur in India, with children and the elderly as the most vulnerable. “Children are being mutilated. This activism has reached extremes,” he told the court.
The judgment is being seen as a balancing act — recognising public safety concerns while also upholding the rights of animals and those who care for them.
