Top bureaucrats will be held personally accountable for their failure to control the stray dog problem while protecting the welfare of people and animals, the Supreme Court said Monday, harshly criticising states and Union territories (UTs) for not submitting compliance reports from their animal husbandry departments and local bodies on the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.
On November 3, a three-judge panel headed by Justice Vikram Nath ordered the chief secretaries of every state and union territory to appear before it and provide justifications for why, despite plenty of time, no compliance affidavits had been submitted.

The bench pointed out that the chief secretaries of the two states in question were not required to personally appear because only Telangana, West Bengal, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) have submitted their reports thus far. The court explained that the MCD report would not be adequate and that the Delhi chief secretary would also need to appear on November 3.
The bench, which also included justices Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, stated, "Let chief secretaries of all states and Union territories remain present before this court on November 3 along with an explanation why no compliance affidavit was filed till date."

The court expressed its strong disapproval and reminded the states that they had three months in August to update the bench on their progress in putting the ABC Rules into effect, which require local governments to implement anti-rabies and sterilisation programmes based on the catch-neuter-vaccinate-release model.
They were granted three months in August, but nothing has been documented. Justice Nath stated that the court would not think twice about imposing fees for the ongoing non-compliance. "Continuous incidents are happening and your country is shown in a bad light at international platforms," she remarked.
Every newspaper and other media outlet carried extensive coverage of our decree.

Do the state officials not utilise social media or read newspapers? As it called on all chief secretaries to come in person, the bench said.
After transferring all such cases that were pending before high courts to itself in August and broadening the scope of proceedings to include all states and UTs, the court is now keeping an eye on the issue suo motu in order to develop a national policy on stray dog management.
Speaking on behalf of animal rights activist Gauri Maulekhi, senior counsel Sidharth Luthra told the bench during Monday's hearing that his client had submitted a collection of best practices from different jurisdictions to help the court take it into consideration.

Representing an NGO that has sterilised thousands of canines, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi attempted to help the court come up with a practical remedy. "All right. The bench declared, "Impleadment allowed."
"What about cruelty to humans?" was the bench's curt response when another advocate brought forth examples of animal abuse. The bench emphasised that the court's goal was to balance public safety and animal welfare. "We are only keeping an eye on it in order to accomplish the goal. A balance must be maintained. It stated that we would hear it on November 3.

The same bench amended a previous decision from a two-judge bench on August 11 that mandated the widespread collection of stray dogs in Delhi and the surrounding regions without their release in its most recent substantive order on August 22. The Justice Nath-led bench referred to that ban as "too harsh" and explained that, with the exception of dogs with rabies or aggressive tendencies, all canines must be sterile, vaccinated, and returned to the same area.
Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the ABC Rules, 2023, which provide for the humane management of stray dogs through sterilisation and immunisation rather than mass incarceration, were essentially reinstated as a result of the clarification.

Along with prohibiting feeding in residential areas and public roadways and ordering the creation of designated feeding facilities in each ward, the court issued a warning that infractions would result in legal action.
In order to create a standardised national framework, the bench at the time had appealed with all states and UTs and instructed them to submit thorough reports on ABC compliance from their local bodies and animal husbandry agencies. Additionally, it had requested that the municipal authorities in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram, and Faridabad move on with mass capture and shelter construction, making sure that the treated dogs were returned to their communities in accordance with the regulations.

In order for municipal entities to construct facilities for stray dogs, the August order ordered animal welfare organisations and individual petitioners to deposit ₹2 lakh and ₹25,000 with the Supreme Court registry.
The court's involvement came after a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan issued an earlier order in response to widespread alarm over a string of dog bite occurrences, including the death of a six-year-old girl. Animal welfare organisations criticised the broad ruling, citing statutory violations and cruelty.
In an uncommon administrative move, Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai then moved the case from the Pardiwala bench to the three-judge panel led by Justice Nath in order to balance the statutory obligation for animal preservation with public safety concerns.