Supreme Court allows for euthanasia of ‘rabid dogs’

The Supreme Court on May 19, 2026, refused to modify its earlier order dated November 7, 2025, directing all States and Union Territories to remove stray dogs from high-footfall public institutions such as educational institutions, hospitals, bus depots, and railway stations.

The Court clarified that stray dogs cannot be “re-released” into these institutional areas even after sterilisation and anti-rabies vaccination.

Stray Dog Crisis Linked to Article 21

While delivering the judgment, the Bench observed that India’s stray dog crisis had reached alarming levels due to years of weak implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework.

The Court linked the issue directly to Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that the right to life includes the right of citizens to move freely in public spaces without fear of dog attacks.

The Bench stated:

“The Constitution does not envisage a society where children and elderly citizens are left to survive on the mercy of physical strength or chance.”

The Court emphasized that public safety and human dignity are essential components of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21.

Directions to States and Districts

The Supreme Court directed every district in the country to establish at least one fully functional Animal Birth Control (ABC) centre.

States and Union Territories were instructed to expand infrastructure based on local population density and requirements. The Court also directed authorities to:

• Ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies medicines
• Strengthen veterinary healthcare facilities
• Improve vaccination and sterilisation services
• Maintain effective stray animal management systems

Measures for Highways and Expressways

The Bench directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and State governments to develop a coordinated mechanism to address stray animal issues on highways and expressways.

This mechanism would include:

• Transport vehicles for animal rescue
• Shelter facilities
• Coordination with animal welfare organisations
• Rapid response systems for injured or dangerous animals

Euthanasia Allowed in Limited Cases

The Court clarified that legally permissible measures, including euthanasia, may be used in cases involving:

• Rabid dogs
• Incurably ill animals
• Demonstrably dangerous and aggressive dogs posing a threat to human life

However, such actions must strictly comply with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules.

Monitoring by High Courts

To ensure implementation of its directions, the Supreme Court instructed all High Courts to initiate suo motu continuing proceedings for monitoring compliance by States and local authorities.

Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023

The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, recognise sterilisation and anti-rabies vaccination as the primary methods for controlling stray dog populations.

The Rules require sterilised dogs to be released back into the same locality because stray dogs are territorial animals. The Rules prohibit indiscriminate killing or relocation of stray dogs.

Euthanasia is permitted only in exceptional circumstances involving rabid, terminally ill, or fatally injured animals.

Constitutional Debate

The case also highlighted competing constitutional concerns regarding animal welfare and public safety.

Animal welfare groups relied on Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, which imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to show compassion toward living creatures.

On the other hand, petitioners representing residents and dog-bite victims argued that unchecked stray dog populations violated citizens’ rights under Articles 19 and 21, including the right to move freely and the right to live safely and with dignity.

Source: IE