Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Alleged Indiscriminate Killing Of Dogs In Punjab
Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea seeking clarification on alleged misuse of euthanasia directions for stray dogs in Punjab
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an application filed by NGO “Animals Are People Too” seeking clarification that its recent directions permitting euthanasia of certain stray dogs cannot be interpreted as authorising indiscriminate killing of dogs.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked the petitioner to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead, observing that the Supreme Court had already permitted High Courts to continue monitoring issues relating to stray dogs and implementation of related directions.
The matter was mentioned before the Bench by Advocate Anil Kumar Mishra, who submitted that the Court’s May 19 order was allegedly being misunderstood and misused to justify widespread killing of stray dogs in Punjab.
“Dogs are being killed everywhere, all thanks to the Supreme Court,” Mishra told the Bench, while referring to public statements allegedly made by Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann regarding elimination of stray dogs.
Mishra argued that the NGO only wanted a clarification that the Supreme Court’s euthanasia directions applied strictly to rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous dogs and not to healthy stray dogs.
However, the Bench declined to entertain the plea.
“Just because a Chief Minister makes a statement, does that mean we change our order?” Justice Nath remarked during the hearing.
When Mishra pointed out that the Punjab Chief Minister had allegedly tweeted that the Supreme Court had given a “free hand to kill all dogs,” the Court remained unconvinced.
Justice Mehta observed, “No, we will not entertain this.”
The counsel then sought permission to withdraw the application and move the High Court instead.
“Allow me to withdraw and grant liberty,” Mishra requested.
The Court responded, “No, you go. We will not say anything.”
The NGO’s application had raised concerns that local authorities may invoke the Supreme Court’s recent order to carry out unlawful culling, poisoning, or removal of stray dogs contrary to the statutory safeguards under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.
The plea sought an express clarification that euthanasia can only be undertaken after due verification by qualified veterinary experts and strictly within the framework of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the ABC Rules, 2023.
It further argued that the term “aggressive dog” remains undefined under the ABC Rules and may lead to arbitrary classification of ordinary stray dogs as dangerous by local authorities.
The NGO therefore sought directions that no dog be declared “aggressive” except upon examination and recommendation by a duly constituted committee comprising a government veterinary doctor, an animal welfare representative, and a local authority official.
The application also sought directions to State police authorities to ensure that no stray dogs are unlawfully harmed in the guise of implementing the Court’s earlier directions.
In its May 19 order passed in the suo motu stray dog matter, a three-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria had permitted authorities to take legally permissible measures, including euthanasia, in cases involving rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous dogs, subject to statutory safeguards and expert assessment.
The Court had observed that there were “deeply disturbing” reports of dog bite incidents, particularly involving children and elderly persons, and stressed the need to balance public safety concerns with animal welfare protections. It had also refused to modify its earlier directions to the authorities to remove stray dogs from the premises of educational institutions, bus stands, railway stations, sports complexes, hospitals, etc.
Supreme Court on August 11, 2025 had ordered the removal of all stray dogs from the Delhi NCR region and their consequent relocation to dog shelters/compounds dedicated for them. Notably a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan has ordered that the strays shall not be released in the localities, even after sterilisation.
In July last year, the top court had taken suo-moto cognizance of a very disturbing and alarming Newspaper cutting reported by the `Times of India’ in its Delhi edition titled “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”. "Everyday, hundreds of dog bites are being reported in the city and the areas on the outskirts, leading to rabies and ultimately young infants, children and aged are falling prey to this dreadful disease. We are shocked to know that on an average 20,000 cases of dog bites are recorded in the country and out of which 2000 incidents happen in Delhi every day", the bench had noted.
As per the Newspaper report amidst the rising threat of stray dog in the national capital, a 6 year old girl by name Chavi Sharma fell prey to multiple dog bites leaving deep wounds on her left leg, arm and palm. Although the inhabitants of the locality complained for several times to the authorities concerned, yet none paid heed to the complaints of the people residing in the said locality. Also, a four year old boy Abhishek Rai was attacked by a pack of stray dogs on 23-7-2025 in Delhi’s Alipur area of Narela when the child was returning from his Anganwadi School. The dogs pounced at his face repeatedly injuring him until few bystanders rushed to his rescue.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Mentioning Date: May 25, 2026