LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: "City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price"

Not available · 2025 INSC 1357Decided 7 Nov 2025
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta · Justice N.V. Anjaria

Background

This is a continuing suo motu matter, taken up after news reports of children being attacked by stray dogs, along with a batch of connected special leave petitions and writ petitions from across the country. Earlier orders dated 11th August 2025 and 22nd August 2025 had directed municipal authorities nationwide to capture, sterilise, deworm, and vaccinate stray dogs under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, release non-aggressive, non-rabid dogs back to their original localities, set up feeding zones and helplines, and file compliance affidavits. This order deals with three parts: reviewing states' and Union Territories' compliance affidavits and the Amicus Curiae's summary report, applying directions from a Rajasthan High Court writ petition, and addressing the rising incidents of dog-bite attacks in institutional areas like schools, hospitals, and transport hubs.

Decision Breakdown

The Court reviewed compliance status across states and UTs and issued fresh, detailed directions requiring authorities to secure institutional areas (educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots, and railway stations) against stray dog incidents, and to ensure regular inspection and coordination with municipal and Panchayati Raj bodies. It directed the Union of India, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to ensure similar compliance across all centrally-run institutions and to file a comprehensive affidavit within 8 weeks, along with ensuring availability of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin. The Animal Welfare Board of India was directed to file a nationwide status report on sterilisation and vaccination drives and to formulate uniform Standard Operating Procedures. The Court warned that any non-compliance would be viewed seriously and could invite penalties, including suo motu contempt proceedings, and listed the matter for further directions on 13th January 2026.

Lesson Learnt

Public safety measures concerning stray animals require coordinated, sustained action from municipal, state, and central authorities under judicial monitoring: humane control of strays (sterilisation and vaccination rather than indiscriminate removal) must be balanced against the urgent need to protect children and the public, especially in institutional spaces.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case