Sign in Subscribe
Constitutional Law

In Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” 2026 INSC 506 - Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023

CaseCiter

• 4 min read
Share

Constitution of India - Article 21 -The right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India necessarily encompasses the right of every citizen to move freely and access public spaces without living under a constant apprehension of physical harm, attack or exposure to life-threatening events such as dog bites in public areas. The State cannot remain a passive spectator where preventable threats to human life continue to proliferate in the face of statutory mechanisms specifically designed to address them. (Para 99) Financial limitations or logistical inconvenience can never furnish a valid defence where the continued failure of the State results in avoidable injury, trauma and loss of human life. (Para 100)

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 ; Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 - Rule 7(2) - Stray dogs do not possess an indefeasible right to be re-released to the same location from where they were picked up, and their presence in sensitive or restricted-access public spaces cannot be justified by invoking Rule 7(2) read with Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023.  (Para 84) Stray dogs found within such institutional spaces or similar controlled environments, including educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, airports, bus stands/depots (including Inter-State Bus Terminals) and railway stations cannot be held to fall within the scope of the classification contemplated under Rule 7(2) of the ABC Rules, 2023, i.e., “street dogs” or “community owned dogs,” inasmuch as the said provision, read in conjunction with Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023, cannot be construed to extend to sensitive or restricted premises of this nature. (Para 48) [Context: Affirming and elaborating its earlier order of 7 November 2025, the Supreme Court upheld directions requiring immediate removal, sterilisation, vaccination and non‑re‑release of dogs from such areas, validates the AWBI’s nationwide SOPs, rejects pleas for modification or stay, and places ongoing compliance under the monitoring of all High Courts through suo motu writs. Emphasising Article 21 and using Article 142, it directs States, Union Territories and NHAI to rapidly expand ABC infrastructure, ensure vaccines, allow legally‑permissible euthanasia of rabid or demonstrably dangerous dogs, fix accountability (including possible tortious liability for feeders/caretakers in institutions), and warns that continued non‑compliance will attract contempt and other proceedings.]

In Re- “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” 2026 INSC 506 - Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023
In Re- “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” 2026 INSC 506 - Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.pdf
584 KB
download-circle

Case Info

Case name: In Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025, with connected matters)Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 506Coram: Vikram Nath, J.; Sandeep Mehta, J.; N.V. Anjaria, J.Judgment date: 19 May 2026


Case laws and citations referred

  1. City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, In re, (2026) 1 SCC 774 – earlier order dated 7 November 2025, whose directions are now examined, affirmed and elaborated.
  2. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 37 – cited to argue Article 142 cannot be used contrary to statute; discussed and distinguished.
  3. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584 – Constitution Bench on width of Article 142 and how statutory limits do not, by themselves, cut down its scope.
  4. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409 – on plenary but curative nature of Article 142 and that it cannot “supplant” substantive law.
  5. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 – cited for the Court being a “problem‑solver in nebulous areas”.
  6. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 14 : AIR 1967 SC 1643 – referred in context of the evolution of Article 142 jurisprudence.
  7. Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 – on the width of Articles 32, 141, 142.
  8. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 372 – early articulation of limits on Article 142.
  9. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231 – Constitution Bench restating that Article 142 is bounded by fundamental considerations of public policy.
  10. DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622 – cited on Article 142 being exercised with restraint.

(Several of these are discussed together in the long Article 142 analysis, even when not fully quoted.)


Statutes / laws and subordinate legislation referred

  1. Constitution of India
    • Article 21 – right to life, safety and dignified access to public spaces; treated as paramount over animal‑welfare claims.
    • Article 142 – plenary “complete justice” power used to shape, clarify and supplement the regulatory regime.
  3. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act, 1960)
    • Section 2(i) – definition of “street”, used to confine “same place/locality” in Rule 11(19) to public streets, not institutional campuses.
  5. Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (ABC Rules, 2023)
    • Rule 7(2) – “street dogs or community owned Indian dogs or abandoned pedigreed dogs… living on the street or within a gated campus”; held to be classificatory, not conferring a right to occupy every gated campus, especially sensitive institutions.
    • Rule 11(19) – mandate to release sterilised and vaccinated dogs at the “same place or locality”; interpreted not to cover institutional/restricted‑access premises like schools, hospitals, stadiums, bus depots, railway stations, airports.
  7. Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001 – referred historically as the regime that introduced the CSVR (Capture‑Sterilise‑Vaccinate‑Release) model.
  8. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) dated 27 November 2025 issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) – framed pursuant to SC direction (J) in order dated 7 November 2025; their validity and scope are upheld.
  9. National Action Plan for Dog Mediated Rabies Elimination (NAPRE) – referred by parties to support the CSVR model and stable sterilised dog populations.
  10. Other policy / institutional frameworks: municipal bye‑laws, urban local body powers, NHAI’s statutory mandate under its parent Act (not named but relied on) regarding safety on National Highways/Expressways.

Brief 3‑sentence summary


The Supreme Court holds that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 do not confer any right on stray dogs to remain within, or be re‑released into, sensitive institutional or restricted‑access premises such as schools, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands/depots, railway stations and similar high‑risk public spaces. Affirming and elaborating its earlier order of 7 November 2025, the Court upholds directions requiring immediate removal, sterilisation, vaccination and non‑re‑release of dogs from such areas, validates the AWBI’s nationwide SOPs, rejects pleas for modification or stay, and places ongoing compliance under the monitoring of all High Courts through suo motu writs. Emphasising Article 21 and using Article 142, it directs States, Union Territories and NHAI to rapidly expand ABC infrastructure, ensure vaccines, allow legally‑permissible euthanasia of rabid or demonstrably dangerous dogs, fix accountability (including possible tortious liability for feeders/caretakers in institutions), and warns that continued non‑compliance will attract contempt and other proceedings.