The Supreme Court on Tuesday, for the first time, explicitly allowed Indian authorities to cull rabid, terminally ill and clearly dangerous stray dogs in areas where there are frequent attacks, joining countries like the United States, Russia and Japan that allow euthanasia of rabid or dangerous stray dogs under legal safeguards.
In the United States, many state animal control laws allow the euthanasia of rabid, unclaimed, or dangerous dogs after specified holding periods and veterinary supervision, especially when there is a risk to public safety or transmission of rabies.
Russia also allows the euthanasia of dangerous or unclaimed stray dogs in several regions under laws enacted after repeated attacks by stray dog groups, although the country’s Constitutional Court has said such euthanasia can only be justified when public safety cannot be protected otherwise.
Japan similarly follows a system under animal welfare and rabies control, whereby unclaimed stray dogs in public shelters may be euthanized after a legal holding period if they are not reclaimed or adopted.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Angaria said that civil and local authorities may, after veterinary assessment and in accordance with legal safeguards under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, resort to “legally permissible measures, including euthanasia” to curb the threat posed by dangerous dogs.
“In areas where the number of stray dogs has reached alarming proportions and where incidents of dog bites or aggressive attacks have become frequent and constitute a continuing threat to public safety, the relevant authorities may…take such measures as may be legally permissible, including euthanasia in cases involving rabid, incurably sick or clearly dangerous/aggressive dogs.”
This directive formed part of a comprehensive ruling refusing to relax a court order issued earlier in November 2025 requiring the removal of stray dogs from institutional areas and high-density areas such as schools, hospitals, transport hubs and sports complexes.
However, the Supreme Court’s direction allowing the euthanasia of rabid or aggressive stray dogs also raises an important legal question within the current framework of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, which has traditionally allowed animals to be killed only in limited circumstances where keeping the animal alive would be cruel.
Section 13 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act permits the destruction of animals that are fatally injured, sick or in such physical condition that their continued survival would amount to cruelty. This provision requires a veterinary certificate and, in some cases, orders from a judge before destruction can take place.
The court’s ruling expands the practical context in which euthanasia can now be considered. While insisting that authorities act strictly in accordance with the PCA, ABC Rules, and veterinary protocols, the Court explicitly recognized public safety as an independent constitutional concern that justifies the legally permissible euthanasia of “rabid, terminally ill, or clearly dangerous/aggressive dogs.”
The bench stressed that “compassion for animal life” cannot override the state’s constitutional obligation to protect human life under Article 21.
“When the safety and life of human beings are weighed against the interests and well-being of sentient beings, the constitutional balance must necessarily and unambiguously tilt in favor of the preservation and protection of human life,” the ruling said.
The Supreme Court took note of submissions filed by some applicants upholding the earlier order stating that universally accepted models for the management of stray dogs recognize not only sterilization and vaccination, but also “regulated ownership, strict control measures, confinement of stray animals and, where necessary, humane euthanasia of dangerous or unclaimed dogs.”
