Stray dogs on the street in Bengaluru. File | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 31, 2025) refused to grant exemption to chief secretaries of states and union territories to appear before it in person to explain their failure to file affidavits in compliance with its August 22 directive ordering sterilization, de-worming and immunization of stray dogs under the Animal Birth Control Rules (CR202), Animal Birth Control202, Animal Prevention Rules (CR202) Act, 1960.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s request to allow virtual appearances, saying, “No, let them come physically. It is very unfortunate that the court gives time, the government lays down rules and yet no action is followed. They are sleeping over court orders and not respecting them.”
Emphasizing that this would not diminish its earlier directive, the Bench reiterated that the officers must be personally present to answer for not filing compliance affidavits.
In Bihar’s case
The rejection came a day after the same bench rejected a similar plea by Bihar’s standing counsel seeking an exemption for the state’s chief secretary citing the upcoming assembly elections. The court rejected the request and found that the official’s administrative duties were not related to the conduct of the election. “The Election Commission will take care of everything in the state. Don’t worry. Let the Chief Secretary come,” the Bench observed.
On 27 October, the Bench expressed strong displeasure over the failure of most states and union territories to submit compliance reports of their local bodies on the implementation of the ABC rules despite having three months to do so in August. It ordered the chief secretaries of all states and union territories to appear before the court in person on November 3, except for Telangana and West Bengal, which complied with its directions.
The court also clarified that the Chief Secretary of Delhi must be present in person, notwithstanding the submission of a report by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
“Nothing has been recorded. There are constant incidents. The land is being shown in foreign lands,” Justice Nath observed while summoning the chief secretaries.
Wide media coverage
The bench also questioned why state officials were not complying with court orders despite extensive media coverage. “Our order was reported by all the newspapers and other media. Don’t civil servants read newspapers or use social media?” it asked.
The court’s suo motu intervention followed growing public concern over a series of dog-bite incidents, including the death of a six-year-old girl, which prompted an earlier order by Justices JB Pardiwal and R Mahadevan calling for a wholesale roundup of stray dogs in Delhi and neighboring districts without release.
However, the directive has drawn criticism from animal welfare groups, who have warned of cruelty and violations of the law. Subsequently, in a rare administrative move, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai withdrew the matter from Justice Pardiwal’s bench and reassigned it to a three-judge bench headed by Justice Nath.
Describing the previous direction as “too harsh”, on August 22, Justice Nath ordered the stray dogs to be sterilised, vaccinated and released back into their habitats, unless they were rabid or exhibiting aggressive behaviour. States were given eight weeks in August to submit reports on the implementation of the ABC rules, which require local authorities to conduct sterilization and rabies actions under a catch-neuter-vaccinate-release model.
The Supreme Court also extended the scope of the proceedings beyond the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) area and directed that the matter be dealt with as an all-India matter so that a unified national policy can be formulated. Accordingly, he directed that the Secretaries of the respective Ministries of all the States and Union Territories be involved in the proceedings.
The August order also directed individual petitioners and NGOs to deposit ₹25,000 and ₹2,00,000,000 respectively in the Supreme Court registry to be used by municipal authorities to develop facilities for the care and management of stray dogs.
Published – 31 Oct 2025 21:03 IST
