In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price

On July 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of a Times of India report titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price,” which detailed the death of a six-year-old girl, Chavi Sharma, from rabies after a stray dog attack in Delhi. On August 11, a two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ordered the permanent removal of all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR streets to shelters, prohibiting their release back. Following widespread protests and concerns over conflicts with existing laws, the case was transferred to a larger three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath. On August 22, this bench significantly modified the earlier order, ruling that non-aggressive dogs should be sterilized, vaccinated, and returned to their original locations.

The case is ongoing. On August 22, 2025, a three-judge bench stayed the controversial "no-release" mandate and reinforced the ABC Rules' return policy. It also issued new guidelines for designated feeding areas for strays and expanded the case's scope to formulate a national policy on stray dog management. The bench reserved its verdict on other pleas, and further hearings are anticipated.

The central dispute was the conflict between public safety concerns regarding stray dog attacks and rabies, and the established legal framework for animal welfare. The August 11 order's "no-release" mandate directly contradicted the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which prescribe a "capture-sterilise-vaccinate-return" policy. This raised questions about judicial overreach, the feasibility of implementation given the lack of infrastructure, and the balance between protecting human life and upholding animal welfare laws.

The case sparked significant public debate and polarized opinions across India. Animal rights activists and dog lovers protested the August 11 order, calling it unjust and inhumane. Conversely, the order was supported by those who viewed stray dogs as a public health risk. The case highlighted the lack of adequate infrastructure for stray dog management and prompted a national conversation on balancing public safety, animal welfare, and the rule of law. The Supreme Court's subsequent modification was seen as a victory for animal welfare advocates.