The Supreme Court of India has declined to hear a petition challenging the remarks made by Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann regarding the elimination of stray dogs. The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, recommended that the petitioner approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead.
Supreme Court’s Prior Ruling on Stray Dogs
Previously, on May 19, the Supreme Court had issued an order allowing the euthanasia of rabid, incurably ill, or aggressive stray dogs by competent authorities. This action is contingent on the assessment by qualified veterinary experts and adherence to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and other relevant legislation.
Subsequent to this ruling, Chief Minister Mann announced on Twitter that the Punjab government would initiate a campaign to eliminate stray dogs deemed dangerous. He cited the Supreme Court’s decision as the basis for this action.
Contention Over CM’s Statement
The petitioner objected to the Chief Minister’s statement, arguing that it implied a blanket approval from the Supreme Court to kill all stray dogs. The Bench, however, clarified that the High Courts are responsible for ensuring strict compliance with its orders and advised the petitioner to take the matter up with the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
“If the CM makes a statement, do we change our order?” Justice Nath queried, emphasizing that the proper avenue for such grievances is the High Court.
More Read
Context of the Stray Dogs Issue
The issue of stray dog management has been a topic of national concern. Earlier, a different Bench had ordered Delhi municipal authorities to round up and shelter stray dogs, leading to protests from animal rights organizations. This order was later revised to focus on vaccination, sterilization, and the regulated release of dogs under the Animal Birth Control Rules.
On November 7, 2025, the Supreme Court issued additional interim measures, directing states and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to remove stray animals from highways and institutional areas like hospitals and schools. It also mandated fencing of such institutions to prevent dog bites and prohibited re-releasing dogs into the same areas from which they were removed.
May 19 Judgment
The May 19 judgment reiterated the Court’s earlier stance, allowing for the euthanasia of dangerous dogs under lawful provisions. It also protected officials from criminal proceedings provided they acted in good faith while implementing these directions.
More Read
The Court underscored the importance of public safety, stating that the right to live with dignity includes the right to move freely without fear of dog attacks. It directed all High Courts to monitor the implementation of these guidelines, with compliance reports due by August 7.
The Supreme Court’s decisions aim to balance public safety with animal rights, ensuring that humane and lawful methods are employed in managing the stray dog population.
