SC declines plea to exempt chief secys from appearance in stray dog case

The Supreme Court on Friday declined a request made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta seeking exemption from physical appearance for chief secretaries of states and Union territories in connection with the ongoing suo motu case concerning the stray dog menace.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta turned down the plea for virtual participation, insisting that the Chief Secretaries must appear before the Court in person.

Advertisement

“No, let them come physically. It is very unfortunate that the Court is compelled to spend its time on issues that should have been addressed by the municipal bodies and the State governments over the years. Parliament frames rules, yet no action is taken,” Justice Nath remarked.

The Bench further observed, “We required them to file compliance affidavits, but they are sleeping over it. There is no respect for the Court’s orders. Let them appear personally and explain why compliance affidavits were not submitted. They must file them thereafter.”

Earlier, on October 27, the apex court had directed the personal presence of Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories — except West Bengal and Telangana — on November 3, for failing to submit compliance affidavits as required under its August 22, 2025 directions.

Noting that only the West Bengal and Telangana governments, along with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, had filed their compliance affidavits, the Supreme Court had observed in its October 27 order, “As most of the States and Union Territories have not responded, the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories, other than the States of West Bengal and Telangana, shall remain present before this Court on November 3, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., along with their respective explanations as to why compliance affidavits have not been filed.”

During the October 27 proceedings, Justice Nath expressed disapproval over the repeated incidents of stray dog attacks and the lack of remedial measures by the authorities. “Continuous incidents are happening, and the image of the country is being shown as down in the eyes of foreign nations. We are also reading news reports,” he said.

On August 22, a three-judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria had modified an earlier August 11 order on stray dogs, clarifying that captured dogs must be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated, and released back to their original localities — except those suffering from rabies, suspected to be rabid, or showing aggressive behaviour.

At the same time, the Court prohibited public feeding of stray dogs on streets and directed that dedicated feeding points be created, while stressing the need for a uniform national policy on stray dog management.

Stating that the issue required a “holistic approach,” the August 22 order had stayed the earlier directive of August 11, issued by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, which had required that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be permanently housed in shelters and not returned to the streets.

Expanding the scope of the issue to a pan-India scale, the Court had said that municipal bodies nationwide must ensure that only sterilised and immunised dogs are released back into their localities, while rabid or dangerously aggressive dogs may be quarantined or kept in shelters.

“Dogs that are picked up shall be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated and released back to the same area,” the Bench had directed.

The August 22 order marked a significant departure from the earlier August 11 ruling, which had completely barred the release of stray dogs. The Court said the modification was necessary to align with the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules and to adopt a practical framework for coexistence between humans and animals.

The Court also directed every municipal authority to create designated feeding spaces in each ward based on the dog population and to display notice boards clearly indicating permitted feeding areas. Feeding on public roads and streets was expressly prohibited.

“Persons found feeding dogs in violation of this direction shall be liable to action under the relevant framework,” the order said, further instructing authorities to set up helplines for reporting violations.

Extending the matter beyond Delhi-NCR, the Bench impleaded all States, UTs, Secretaries of Animal Husbandry Departments, and municipal corporations for compliance with the ABC Rules, and transferred similar cases pending before High Courts to itself to facilitate the formulation of a comprehensive national policy on stray dogs.

The suo motu proceedings began after the earlier two-judge bench took cognisance of a July 28 news report titled “City hounded by strays and kids pay price”.

On August 11, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan ordered Delhi-NCR to clear localities of stray dogs within eight weeks, house them in shelters and ensure none were released back.

The August 11 order sparked widespread protests from animal rights groups and prompted concerns over conflicts with earlier Supreme Court rulings emphasising compassion and sterilisation rather than removal.