New Delhi, May 19: The Supreme Court in a significant verdict on Tuesday allowed euthanasia of rabid, incurably ill, dangerous and aggressive dogs to curb threat to human lives, saying the right to live with dignity encompasses the right to move freely without the threat of harm from canines.
In a first of its kind order, the top court ruled that when the safety and lives of human beings are weighed against the interests and welfare of sentient beings, the constitutional balance must necessarily and unequivocally tilt in favour of the preservation and protection of human life.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, which dismissed all the petitions and applications for recall, modification of the November 7, 2025 order including directive on relocation and sterilisation of dogs from institutional areas, said the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution stands at the “highest pedestal of constitutional protection”.
It said, “In areas where the population of stray dogs has assumed alarming proportions and where incidents of dog bites or aggressive attacks have become frequent and pose a continuing threat to public safety, the concerned authorities may, subject to due assessment by qualified veterinary experts and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 and other applicable statutory protocols, take such measures as may be legally permissible, including euthanasia in cases involving rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous/aggressive dogs, so as to effectively curb the threat posed to human life and safety.”
It said that the Constitution casts upon the State an affirmative, non-negotiable and continuing duty to take all expedient, effective, preventive and legally permissible measures necessary to secure citizens against threats to life and safety arising from stray dog attacks and related dangers.
The bench, which heard several animal welfare organisations, activists, NGOs and state governments, said it must be emphatically reiterated that the States and Union Territories are under a continuing and untrammelled constitutional obligation to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens under Article 21.
It said such obligation necessarily extends to the creation, augmentation and sustained maintenance of adequate infrastructure for the effective implementation of the Animal Birth Control framework, including sterilisation, vaccination, sheltering and overall scientific management of stray dogs.
“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,” the bench said.
It pointed out that after reserving judgment in the present matter on January 29, the court has been apprised of multiple reports indicating that incidents of dog bites and stray dog attacks continue to occur across different parts of the country with alarming frequency and severity.
“The reports brought to the notice of this court reveal that the magnitude of the problem and the resultant threat posed to public safety has assumed deeply disturbing proportions. The incidents disclosed are not isolated or sporadic occurrences, but reflect a continuing and widespread pattern of attacks resulting in severe physical injury, psychological trauma and, in several cases, loss of human life.
“It is clear that the unchecked population of dogs has become increasingly feral, and such animals have no place in areas densely populated by human beings owing to the serious threat they pose to public safety,” it said.
The bench, which issued a slew of directions to the states and Union territories, said any failure, hesitation or administrative apathy in adopting measures to secure citizens would strike at the very core of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 and would render the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens illusory, hollow and incapable of meaningful enforcement in the lived realities of society.
“Compassion for animal life, howsoever important, cannot be interpreted in a manner that compels citizens to endure recurring threats to their own lives, safety and bodily integrity,” it ruled in its 131-page verdict.
The top court also dismissed applications and petitions challenging the validity of SOPs dated November 27, 2025 of Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) issued pursuant to November 7, 2025 directions of the court.
“The SOPs issued by the AWBI, in substance, seek to operationalise the directions issued by this court in a structured and implementable manner, and cannot be said to transgress either the statutory framework or constitutional principles, but rather constitute an administrative mechanism to give effect to the mandate of this court in a uniform and effective manner across jurisdictions,” it said.
While directing the states and Union territories to augment infrastructure to deal with stray dogs and other animals, the top court directed all the high courts to register a suo moto case to ensure compliance of its August 22, 2025, November 7, 2025 directions issued by the court. (PTI)
