The Supreme Court has ruled that student groups and animal welfare collectives cannot continue feeding or sheltering stray dogs inside educational campuses unless they are willing to legally answer for any harm caused by those animals.
In a significant observation balancing animal welfare with public safety, a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N. V. Anjaria said compassion towards stray dogs cannot exist without accountability when human safety is at stake.
The Court declared that any student-led organisation or animal welfare body operating within a college or university must submit a formal affidavit accepting responsibility for dog-bite incidents or similar injuries occurring on campus. Without such an undertaking, institutions cannot permit stray dog feeding or maintenance activities within their premises.
According to the Bench, concerns surrounding stray animals cannot be treated as isolated welfare issues detached from the rights and safety of students, staff and visitors.
The judgment further warned that institutional authorities could face consequences if these directions are ignored or loosely enforced.
The observations came during proceedings involving NALSAR University of Law, which sought exemption from broader directions aimed at removing stray dogs from educational spaces.
NALSAR argued that its Animal Law Centre had already established a structured system for humane stray dog management on campus. The university informed the Court that it conducts sterilisation drives, vaccination programmes and awareness campaigns involving students and faculty members. It also contended that its model could function as a practical demonstration of humane animal management under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
The Supreme Court agreed to carve out a limited exception for the university, but only under strict conditions.
The Bench permitted NALSAR’s Capture-Sterilise-Vaccinate-Release (CSVR) programme to continue experimentally within the campus. However, the Court made it clear that the Animal Law Centre must first submit an undertaking to the Vice Chancellor accepting tortious liability if any individual suffers injury from stray dog attacks inside the university premises.
In effect, the Court shifted the debate from abstract animal rights to enforceable responsibility.
The ruling underlined that any policy concerning stray dogs must contain a clear mechanism fixing accountability on those choosing to maintain or protect the animals in shared public environments.
The Bench also reiterated its broader concern over the growing menace of dog-bite incidents while refusing to dilute earlier directions relating to the removal of stray dogs from public spaces. It additionally endorsed euthanasia in cases involving rabid or dangerously aggressive dogs.
