Animal Welfare Board of India falls in line with Supreme Court order on removal of stray dogs from institutions, issues SOP for States, UTs; Exclusive details

On 27th November, in a crucial development for public safety, particularly for children, patients, commuters and citizens, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) finally issued a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in compliance with the Supreme Court’s 7th November order in the suo motu case titled “City Housed by Strays, Kids Pay Price”.

It has to be noted that since 2001, when the ABC Rules came into effect for the first time, the country has been facing an increasing stray dog menace on a year-on-year basis. Replies to OpIndia’s RTIs showed how grim the situation has become. In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognisance of the matter and since then, a lot has happened. Initially, the apex court ordered the removal of all stray dogs from Delhi on 11th August. However, the resistance from the self-styled dog lovers worked and within a few days, the case was forwarded to a larger bench and the order got modified.

Though it looked like a win for stray dog lovers, the Supreme Court extended the scope of the case countrywide and ordered the transfer of all such cases from High Courts to itself. In the following months, State Secretaries were ordered to be physically present in the court as they failed to submit affidavits about the compliance of ABC Rules and the situation in their respective states.

Finally, on 7th November, the court passed an interim order and directed the authorities to remove all dogs from schools, colleges, hospitals, sports complexes, railway stations and bus stands. While the order faced criticism from self-styled dog lovers for unknown reasons, as it is unclear why they want to leave the dogs on streets where they are not only a danger to the vulnerable but remain in constant fear and danger themselves, AWBI, for a change, issued an SOP that is in favour of humans more than dogs.

With the SOP in place, the country now has a legally enforceable operational framework that mandates the removal of stray dogs from a wide range of institutional premises. These include schools, colleges, hospitals, bus depots, railway stations, religious places, tourist sites and other spaces where vulnerable groups are present.

The SOP was circulated to all Chief Secretaries on 27th November. It marks the first time that AWBI has formally accepted and operationalised the Supreme Court’s recognition that dog bite incidents inside institutions have reached alarming levels and it requires immediate action from the authorities. With specific responsibilities placed on municipal bodies, managements of institutions and State governments, the document leaves no room for misinterpretation. Human safety has finally been restored as the central priority of the law.

What led to the SOP

In the 7th November order, the court specifically expressed concerns about dog bite incidents inside institutional areas, which house children, patients, travellers and the elderly. The Court observed that the rising number of attacks inside school campuses, hospital compounds, bus stands and transport hubs represented a failure of governance and waste management, and deserved urgent action.

Section 25(j) of the apex court’s order directed the AWBI to formulate and circulate the SOP for the prevention of dog bites and for the management of stray dogs in institutional premises. In its order, the court gave AWBI a four-week timeline to issue the SOP for all the States and UTs.

This background is important because for years, debates on stray dogs were clouded by activist narratives and misleading claims about what the law permits. The Supreme Court order, and the AWBI SOP that now enforces it, settle the matter clearly. Institutional premises cannot be shared spaces between humans and free roaming dogs. Public safety takes precedence.

Scope of institutional premises covered under the Court’s directions

One of the strongest features of the SOP is the clarity with which it defines the term institutional premises. According to the document, these include:

• Government and private educational institutions including schools and colleges
• Hospitals, health centres, medical colleges and district hospitals
• Railway stations and platforms
• Airports and helipads
• Bus stands, bus depots and inter-state bus stations
• Religious sites and places of worship
• Tourist sites and public complexes
• Children’s parks and recreational spaces

This clarity removes the scope for local administrators to claim confusion or rely on outdated interpretations influenced by activist pressure.

Identification of all institutions and responsibility of local authorities

The SOP has assigned the first tier of responsibility to local and municipal authorities, district administrations and urban local bodies. These authorities must identify every institution within their territorial limits. This is not limited to government institutions but includes private establishments as well.

The identification exercise is foundational because each institution will be required to comply with entry prevention, waste management and dog removal guidelines. Mapping the institutions is the first step in ensuring that responsibility cannot be shifted from one department to another. The SOP treats every municipal body as accountable for everything that happens within its jurisdiction.

The document also obligates local authorities to identify other public places such as religious sites, parks and tourist spots where members of the public congregate in large numbers. This exercise changes the framework from passive stray dog management to proactive prevention of dog presence in sensitive spaces.

Mandatory prevention of dog entry into institutional areas

Once an institution is identified, the SOP requires its management to ensure that stray dogs do not enter the premises. This is a major shift from earlier years when animal rights NGOs frequently argued that institutions could only remove dogs temporarily and must allow them back after sterilisation.

The SOP rejects that position, as it cannot co-exist with public safety. Measures that institutions must take include:

• Boundary walls or fencing where absent
• Functional gates
• Regular checking of entry and exit points
• Physical barriers that prevent dog ingress

The purpose is straightforward. If dogs cannot enter, there will be no chance of children facing them in corridors or playgrounds, no chance of patients encountering them near emergency entrances and no chance of travellers seeing them lying inside waiting rooms or platforms.

Appointment of Nodal Officers for monitoring and removal

In a significant governance reform, the SOP mandates that each institution must appoint a Nodal Officer. This person is responsible for ensuring that no dog is present inside or around the institution. Monitoring must be regular and recorded.

This is crucial because without a designated officer, responsibility gets diluted. The presence of a named officer means accountability is immediate. If a dog is found in a school campus or a hospital’s emergency bay, there is no confusion about who must respond.

For large institutions such as hospitals, universities and transport hubs, the Nodal Officer ensures communication with the local municipal body for swift dog removal. This establishes a chain of accountability that was previously missing.

Process for removal and relocation of stray dogs from institutional premises

The SOP states clearly that all stray dogs found within institutional premises must be identified and removed by local or municipal authorities. These dogs must then be shifted to designated shelters. The language of the SOP leaves no ambiguity. The authority responsible for removal cannot outsource this responsibility to activists or NGOs except for technical assistance.

The removal process must be carried out in a humane manner, but it must be carried out. The Supreme Court’s concern that institutional premises have become unsafe zones is reflected in the clarity of this instruction. Removal is not discretionary. It is mandatory.

Furthermore, the SOP clarifies that once removed and shifted to shelters, dogs are not to be returned to these institutional spaces. This is a direct contradiction of activist claims that sterilised dogs must be returned to their original locations. The SOP recognises that institutions are not public streets or neighbourhoods, but controlled premises where the presence of stray animals puts human lives at risk.

Rules on sterilisation, vaccination and medical handling after removal

The SOP also prescribes how dogs must be handled after removal. Municipal Corporations must ensure that all dogs removed are sterilised before being placed in shelters. If sterilisation centres are not available, veterinary hospitals under the Animal Husbandry Department must carry out the procedures.

Vaccination is also mandatory, particularly the anti-rabies vaccine. Pregnant dogs, injured dogs or diseased animals must be handled according to veterinary guidelines until they recover. These medical requirements ensure that dogs housed in shelters do not create health risks for shelter staff or for each other.

Waste management directives to curb stray dog presence and attacks

The SOP recognises that poor waste disposal is one of the root causes of the dog menace. Dogs gather around food waste, and even if removed from institutions, they will return if leftover food and garbage are available nearby.

Therefore, municipal authorities must:

• Install waste bins within 100 metres of institutions
• Ensure daily waste clearance
• Take action against vendors or individuals who dump food waste
• Prevent the creation of feeding points near institutions

This is an overdue admission of an uncomfortable truth. Many dog bite incidents happen not because citizens provoke dogs but because waste attracts packs which become territorial. Removing waste removes the incentive for dogs to gather.

Feeding related rules and prohibition on feeding around institutions

The SOP places feeding related restrictions that activists have long resisted. Food must not be provided to dogs near or inside institutional premises. This is a major step because feeding points often become aggressive territorial zones.

Food may be provided only within shelters. If volunteers wish to feed dogs in shelters, they must do so under supervision and within the rules laid down in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules on feeding costs and care.

This provision protects both citizens and volunteers. There is no scope to argue that institutions are feeding zones. Public safety cannot depend on the whims of private feeders.

Public awareness measures for schools, hospitals and public spaces

The SOP requires that institutions and municipal authorities generate public awareness about responsible behaviour in the presence of dogs, responsible waste disposal and safe interaction practices. Video clips must be displayed in multiplexes, shopping complexes and recreational areas. Mass awareness is necessary because dog bite prevention is partly behavioural.

The SOP includes guidance on reading body language, approaching unfamiliar dogs, avoiding direct eye contact with aggressive dogs, and what to do if a dog attacks. These guidelines are important, but they cannot substitute administrative responsibility. The core responsibility remains with authorities to prevent dog presence in sensitive spaces.

Guidelines for preventing dog bites, especially concerning children

The document includes specific instructions on child safety. Children must be taught:

• Not to pull ears or tails
• Not to hug or ride dogs
• Not to make direct eye contact with aggressive dogs
• How to move away slowly if confronted

This section is significant because children are disproportionately victims of dog attacks. However, no amount of behavioural caution can justify the presence of dogs in school campuses. The SOP ensures both behavioural awareness and administrative safeguards.

Monitoring, compliance reporting and enforcement expectations

The SOP instructs that implementation must be monitored by authorities concerned. States must report compliance to the AWBI. This reporting requirement is essential because it converts the SOP from a recommendation to a monitored policy. States that delay action will be accountable directly to the AWBI, and indirectly to the Supreme Court.

Compliance is expected in every district and for every category of institution. Given the Supreme Court’s concern over rising attacks, non-compliance could result in further judicial action.

Brief overview of shelter requirements

The SOP prescribes three shelter types that are 100 dog capacity, 500 dog capacity and 1000 dog capacity. Each shelter must follow minimum infrastructure norms such as six-foot fencing, kennels with demarcated open and dry areas, night shelters and veterinary access. Staffing requirements include watchmen, cleaners and record keepers. Feeding schedules and medical care must also be maintained.

These shelters represent the long-term solution for managing dog populations without allowing them to occupy institutional premises. The designs provided in the annexures give States a ready model that can be scaled as required.

AWBI has added a clause that puts responsibility of creating shelters and kennels on NGOs and self-styled dog lovers as well, which will now help in differentiating those who wants to dogs to be in safe place and those who want the dogs to suffer on the streets. AWBI noted “The animal welfare organizations and NGOs may volunteer for technical support, capacity building and other resources towards the construction, and maintenance of animal shelters and community kennels, in partnership with local bodies and institutions.”

Furthermore, the board said, “The local/municipal bodies shall facilitate the establishment of community kennels for which financial contribution can be jointly mobilised from interested Institutions, NGOs and other stakeholders willing to support the creation and development of community kennels and shelters.”

Conclusion

The AWBI’s SOP marks a major shift in India’s stray dog management framework. After years of ambiguity and activist pressure, the law now unequivocally recognises that public spaces like schools, hospitals, transport hubs and parks cannot be shared zones with free roaming dogs. Human safety, particularly the safety of children, has been restored as the central consideration.

OpIndia is doing a series on the stray dog menace in India which can be checked here.