Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain NGO Plea Over Bhagwant Mann’s Alleged Stray Dogs Remark

• WhatsApp
• YouTube
• X
• Instagram

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea filed by an animal rights NGO over Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s alleged statement claiming that the court had given authorities a “free hand” to eliminate stray dogs. The matter came up before a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, which made it clear that a political statement cannot alter the meaning of a judicial order.

The NGO, ‘Animals are People Too’, had sought urgent intervention from the apex court, alleging that stray dogs were being targeted and killed after the Supreme Court’s recent observations on the growing stray dog menace across the country. Advocate Anil Kumar Mishra, appearing for the organisation, argued that Mann’s remarks could be misunderstood as official permission for large-scale killing of stray dogs.

However, the Bench refused to hear the matter and directed the petitioner to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead. The judges observed that High Courts had already been asked to monitor compliance of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions in the stray dog matter.

“Just because a Chief Minister makes a statement, does that mean we have to change our order?” the Bench remarked during the hearing.

The controversy began after Bhagwant Mann allegedly posted on social media that the Supreme Court had allowed the Punjab government to launch a major campaign against dangerous stray dogs. According to the NGO, the statement created confusion and fear among animal welfare groups, with concerns that local authorities or individuals could misuse the court’s order to justify illegal culling or poisoning of dogs.

The NGO requested the Supreme Court to clarify that euthanasia of stray dogs can only take place in limited situations and strictly under legal procedures. It also sought directions to state police departments to ensure that no unlawful harm comes to stray animals in the name of implementing court orders.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had acknowledged the increasing number of stray dog attacks being reported from different parts of the country. The court allowed euthanasia only for rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous stray dogs, and that too after proper medical assessment by qualified veterinary experts.

The Bench had also stressed that all such action must follow the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. The court made it clear that its observations should not be interpreted as approval for indiscriminate killing of stray animals.

In its earlier ruling, the Supreme Court expressed concern over incidents involving children, elderly people, and even foreign tourists being attacked by stray dogs in public places. The judges noted that citizens have a constitutional right to move freely without fear of physical harm.

The court had further refused to modify its November 2025 directions stating that stray dogs picked up from sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals, bus stands, and railway stations should not be released back into the same locations after sterilisation and vaccination.

At the same time, the apex court emphasised the need for humane management of stray animals and directed states and Union Territories to strengthen their Animal Birth Control systems. It warned that officials failing to comply with the directions could face contempt proceedings and disciplinary action.

The latest hearing once again highlighted the delicate balance between public safety and animal welfare, an issue that continues to spark intense debate across the country.