The Supreme Court of India refused to modify an order directing the removal of stray dogs from public institutions [1].
The ruling reinforces the priority of public safety over animal presence in high-traffic areas. By maintaining the directive, the court signals that the state has a constitutional obligation to prevent injuries in shared public spaces.
The court upheld a directive from November 2025 that mandates the removal of stray dogs from schools, hospitals, colleges, bus stations, and railway stations [1]. During the proceedings, the court said that states could not remain passive spectators as the right to life with dignity includes living free from stray dogs [3].
Judges said that the dog-bite menace is rising, and that is why they cannot relax on this issue [2]. The court linked the presence of stray dogs in these specific zones to a threat to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty [4].
Not all parties agreed with the court's stance. Maneka Gandhi said the Supreme Court has done nothing [1]. Her criticism follows the court's decision to prioritize the safety of pedestrians and students over the current placement of stray animals in these sectors.
The court's refusal to alter the order means that local authorities must continue implementing the removal process across the designated public institutions [1], [3]. This includes ensuring that hospitals and schools remain clear of stray animals to prevent accidents and health risks to the public [2].
“The right to life with dignity includes living free from stray dogs.”
This decision establishes a legal precedent in India that prioritizes the constitutional 'right to life' over animal welfare in specific public zones. By explicitly citing Article 21, the court provides a legal shield for municipal authorities to remove animals from schools and hospitals without facing successful challenges from animal rights advocates based on general welfare laws.
