The Supreme Court of India ruled that colleges may keep stray dogs on campus only if they accept liability for any harm caused [1].
This decision balances public health concerns regarding rabies and animal aggression against the legal right to life for animals. It places the legal and financial burden of animal management directly on educational institutions that choose to provide sanctuary for strays.
In an order issued on May 21, 2024 [1], the court said authorities may carry out the euthanasia of rabid and aggressive stray dogs [1]. This measure aims to reduce the risk of rabies and other injuries in public spaces. The court also dismissed petitions that sought to modify a previous order regarding the removal of stray dogs from public areas and the prohibition of releasing them back into those spaces [2].
Regarding the specific environment of higher education, the court addressed requests from student bodies. The ruling said that colleges may keep stray dogs on campus only if they accept liability for any injury or damage caused by the animals [3]. This requirement ensures that the institution, rather than the state or individual students, is responsible for the consequences of animal behavior on campus.
The court cited the right to life with dignity when considering the status of these animals [4]. However, this right does not override the safety of the general public. By shifting the liability to the colleges, the court creates a mechanism where institutions must weigh the ethical desire to house strays against the potential legal risks of animal-related injuries [3].
The ruling clarifies that while the state may remove strays from public areas to ensure safety, private or semi-private institutional grounds can serve as alternatives provided the governing body assumes full responsibility [2].
“Colleges may keep stray dogs on campus only if they accept liability for any injury or damage caused by the animals.”
This ruling establishes a strict legal framework for urban animal management in India. By tying the presence of stray dogs to institutional liability, the court effectively discourages the casual keeping of strays unless an organization is willing to assume the financial and legal risks of dog bites or accidents. It further prioritizes human public health by authorizing the euthanasia of aggressive animals, signaling a shift toward a more controlled approach to stray population management.
