Introduction:
The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Government to take effective and aggressive steps to implement the sterilisation programme prescribed under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, observing that the continuing growth in the population of stray dogs is at the heart of the difficulties faced by citizens, including incidents of dog bites and the consequent risk of rabies. The observations were made by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad while hearing In Re Compliance With The Supreme Court Order v. State of Maharashtra, Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 2 of 2026.
The proceedings before the Bombay High Court form part of a larger judicial exercise concerning the stray dog menace and public safety. The matter was taken up suo motu pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court in its own suo motu proceedings, under which the High Courts were called upon to monitor the problem of stray dogs and, particularly, incidents of dog bites in their respective jurisdictions.
The issue has considerable public-health significance. Stray dog populations in urban and semi-urban areas have continued to raise concerns relating to dog attacks, road safety, waste management and the spread of rabies. At the same time, measures dealing with stray animals must operate within the legal framework governing animal welfare. The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 provide a regulatory mechanism for managing the stray dog population through sterilisation and vaccination rather than indiscriminate elimination of animals.
Against this background, the Bombay High Court sought to examine the measures being undertaken by the State of Maharashtra to address the problem. During the hearing, Additional Government Pleader Onkar Chandurkar placed affidavits filed by the State Government before the Bench. The Court also sought information concerning the availability of data relating to rabies cases and medicines used for rabies treatment and asked how frequently such information was being updated on the Government’s website.
The State informed the Court that the relevant data was being updated regularly. The Court, however, indicated that the proceedings would require continuing monitoring rather than a one-time consideration. To assist the Bench, senior advocate Mihir Desai was appointed as Amicus Curiae.
The Court made it clear that the matter would be taken up at regular intervals, approximately every fifteen days, and directed the State to furnish the necessary data at each hearing. The approach adopted by the Bench reflects the Court’s intention to monitor implementation on the ground rather than merely record assurances placed before it.
The central concern expressed by Acting Chief Justice Ghuge was the continuing increase in the stray dog population. According to the Bench, if the growth of the population is effectively controlled through proper implementation of the sterilisation programme, a substantial part of the difficulties experienced by citizens would be addressed.
The Court’s observations were directed towards implementation of the statutory framework rather than an abandonment of animal welfare protections. The Bench emphasised sterilisation in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 and stressed the need for the authorities to undertake the programme effectively and on a sufficiently large scale.
The Court also referred to the need to focus on aggressive dogs as part of the authorities’ broader response. The concern was that merely catching individual dogs without addressing population growth would not provide a lasting solution. If the number of stray dogs continues to increase, the underlying problem would persist despite short-term measures.
The proceedings therefore bring together two important public interests. On one side is the responsibility of the State to protect citizens from dog bites and associated health risks. On the other is the statutory obligation to deal with stray animals through legally prescribed and humane methods. The Court’s emphasis on sterilisation represents an attempt to address population growth within the existing legal framework.
The matter has not yet reached a final adjudication. The High Court has instead adopted a continuing supervisory approach and has directed the State to place updated information before it at regular intervals. The case has consequently become an important judicial monitoring exercise concerning the implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules, public health and municipal administration in Maharashtra.
Arguments of the Parties:
The State of Maharashtra, through Additional Government Pleader Onkar Chandurkar, placed affidavits before the High Court explaining the steps being taken by the administration in relation to the stray dog problem. The State also responded to the Bench’s queries concerning the availability and updating of data relating to rabies cases and medicines.
When the Bench specifically asked how frequently the State updated information concerning rabies cases and the availability of medicines for rabies treatment on its website, the State informed the Court that the relevant data was updated regularly. The submission was intended to demonstrate that the Government was monitoring the public-health aspects of the stray dog problem and maintaining information concerning rabies-related incidents and treatment.
The State’s position, as reflected in the proceedings, was therefore that administrative mechanisms were already in place to deal with the problem and that information was being maintained and updated. The affidavits placed before the Court were relied upon to apprise the Bench of the measures undertaken by the State authorities.
The broader context of the proceedings, however, required the State to demonstrate more than the existence of administrative measures. Since the High Court was exercising continuing supervisory jurisdiction pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions, the effectiveness of the measures and their implementation assumed particular importance.
The Bench’s questions concerning rabies data, medicines and the sterilisation programme indicate that the Court was interested in measurable and verifiable information rather than general assurances. The State would consequently be required to furnish updated information during subsequent hearings so that the Court could assess whether the measures were actually addressing the problem.
The proceedings also required consideration of the legal framework governing stray dogs. The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 provide the statutory mechanism through which authorities are expected to control the stray dog population. The Rules contemplate sterilisation and vaccination as central components of the programme. Thus, the State’s response had to be assessed against the obligations created by the Rules.
The Court, on its part, identified population growth as a principal concern. The Bench expressed the view that merely catching stray dogs would not solve the underlying problem if the population continued to increase. It therefore urged the administration to prioritise implementation of the sterilisation programme.
The Bench also drew attention to aggressive dogs. Acting Chief Justice Ghuge observed that the administration should not focus solely on catching dogs but should first ensure that sterilisation is undertaken effectively, including in relation to aggressive dogs as part of the overall management strategy.
The Court’s position was essentially that an effective solution must address the cause of continuing population growth rather than dealing only with its consequences. If dogs continue to reproduce at a high rate, the number of animals requiring management will continue to rise, making other administrative measures increasingly difficult.
The Court also recognised that the issue cannot be approached only from the perspective of animal control. The repeated incidents of dog bites and the possibility of rabies create a public-health obligation requiring systematic governmental intervention. The Court’s questions concerning rabies cases and medicines reflected this dimension of the problem.
The appointment of senior advocate Mihir Desai as Amicus Curiae was another significant step. An amicus can assist the Court by bringing an independent perspective, examining the material placed by the State and helping the Bench assess whether the legal and administrative requirements are being effectively implemented.
The Court’s decision to hear the matter every fifteen days further demonstrates the supervisory nature of the proceedings. Rather than leaving the implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules entirely to administrative discretion, the Court indicated that it would periodically review the information furnished by the State.
The State would consequently be expected to provide relevant data at each hearing, enabling the Court to evaluate progress over time. Such data-driven judicial monitoring is particularly relevant in a public-health matter where the effectiveness of government measures may be assessed through indicators such as the number of sterilised dogs, reported dog-bite incidents, rabies cases and availability of treatment.
The Court’s intervention does not suggest that the Government has been denied administrative discretion in implementing the programme. Rather, it requires that the discretion be exercised consistently with the legal framework and that the administration demonstrate meaningful implementation.
The central issue before the Court was therefore not whether stray dogs should simply be removed from public spaces, but how the State can control the growing population and reduce the risks to citizens while complying with the statutory animal birth-control regime.
The proceedings also reflect the constitutional role of the High Court in protecting public health and ensuring compliance with statutory obligations. Where a problem affects a large section of the population and requires coordinated action by several governmental authorities, continuing judicial oversight may be considered necessary to ensure that legal requirements are translated into practical measures.
The Court’s observations make clear that it expects the administration to approach the issue proactively. In the Bench’s assessment, controlling reproduction through sterilisation is central to any sustainable strategy because population growth otherwise continues to generate the same problems year after year.
Court’s Judgment:
The Bombay High Court has not finally disposed of the suo motu proceedings. Instead, it has adopted a continuing monitoring mechanism and directed the Maharashtra Government to intensify implementation of the sterilisation programme under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad identified the growing population of stray dogs as a major factor behind the continuing menace faced by citizens. The Bench’s approach was based upon the practical proposition that measures aimed merely at dealing with individual incidents would not provide a lasting solution unless the authorities also addressed population growth.
Acting Chief Justice Ghuge emphasised that the administration must properly and aggressively implement the sterilisation programme contemplated by the ABC Rules. In the Court’s view, if the reproduction of stray dogs is effectively controlled, a substantial part of the problems associated with their increasing numbers can be addressed.
The Court’s observation was not directed towards indiscriminate removal or killing of stray dogs. Instead, the Bench focused on sterilisation as the legally prescribed mechanism for population control. This is significant because the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 establish a regulatory framework for managing stray dogs through sterilisation and vaccination.
The Court therefore placed the emphasis on implementation. The existence of rules or programmes on paper, without effective execution on the ground, would not adequately address the problem. The repeated concern of the Bench was that the administration must act with sufficient urgency and scale.
The Bench observed that the authorities should understand that proper and aggressive sterilisation would prevent continued population growth. It reasoned that a stray dog population which continues to reproduce at a high rate will inevitably create increasing administrative and public-health challenges.
The Court also referred to the fact that a stray dog may produce several puppies, meaning that population growth can quickly multiply the number of animals requiring management. The Bench’s concern was therefore directed towards preventing the problem from expanding rather than merely attempting to manage an already increasing population.
This reasoning explains why the Court considered sterilisation a central part of the State’s responsibility. Catching or relocating individual dogs, without simultaneously addressing reproduction, would not eliminate the underlying problem. New animals would continue to enter the population through reproduction.
The Court accordingly urged the administration to prioritise sterilisation. It also referred to aggressive dogs and indicated that the authorities must take appropriate measures concerning them within the applicable legal framework. The Court’s concern was that public safety should not be compromised while authorities implement animal welfare measures.
Another important aspect of the hearing was the Court’s focus on rabies-related information. The Bench questioned the State regarding the frequency with which information about rabies cases and medicines for rabies treatment was being updated on its website. The State responded that the data was updated regularly.
This exchange demonstrates that the Court was examining the stray dog issue as a public-health concern, rather than treating it solely as an animal-control issue. Dog bites can have serious consequences, particularly because of the risk of rabies. An effective governmental response therefore requires both population management and adequate medical preparedness.
The Court’s insistence upon updated information is important in this context. Reliable data enables the authorities and the Court to identify trends, assess the effectiveness of interventions and determine whether further action is necessary.
The Bench therefore directed that the State should furnish relevant data at each hearing. The matter would be taken up regularly, approximately every fifteen days. This continuing schedule ensures that the issue remains under active judicial consideration and that the Government’s progress can be assessed periodically.
The appointment of senior advocate Mihir Desai as Amicus Curiae was another important feature of the proceedings. The amicus is expected to assist the Court in examining the complex issues arising from the stray dog problem, including the implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules and the public-health concerns associated with dog bites and rabies.
The appointment also provides the Court with an independent source of assistance while evaluating the material placed by the State. In matters involving competing public interests, an amicus can help the Court examine the practical and legal dimensions of the problem without being confined to the position of any particular party.
The High Court’s intervention is rooted in the Supreme Court’s directions requiring High Courts to monitor the stray dog menace and dog-bite incidents within their respective jurisdictions. The Bombay High Court’s proceedings must therefore be understood as part of a broader judicial effort to ensure that the authorities adopt effective measures consistent with the governing legal framework.
The Court’s emphasis on sterilisation also reflects a preventive approach. Rather than responding to stray dog incidents only after they occur, the authorities have been asked to address the demographic cause of the problem. If the population continues to increase, the number of potential dog-bite incidents and other conflicts between humans and stray animals may also increase.
At the same time, the Court’s observations recognise that sterilisation must be implemented “properly” and “aggressively”. Merely having a sterilisation programme is not sufficient. The programme must operate at a scale capable of controlling population growth.
This places a significant administrative responsibility upon the State and local authorities. Effective implementation may require identification of stray dog populations, sufficient veterinary infrastructure, trained personnel, appropriate facilities and systematic monitoring of sterilisation and vaccination efforts. The Court’s demand for regular data is intended to facilitate precisely this kind of accountability.
The Court also appears to have recognised that different dimensions of the problem must be coordinated. Population control, management of aggressive animals, rabies surveillance, availability of medicines and response to dog-bite cases cannot be treated as completely separate issues. They form part of a larger public-health and municipal governance challenge.
The judgment therefore represents a balance between public safety and the statutory framework for animal welfare. The Court did not direct the State to adopt measures outside the Animal Birth Control Rules. Instead, it required the Government to implement the programme more effectively.
This distinction is important. The legal framework governing stray dogs is intended to provide a structured method for population management. The Court’s role in the present proceedings is to ensure that the statutory scheme is not rendered ineffective through inadequate implementation.
The Court’s observations also underscore that population control should be preventive rather than merely reactive. Once the number of stray dogs becomes very high, authorities face greater difficulties in sterilising, vaccinating and managing the population. Preventing uncontrolled reproduction is therefore likely to reduce the burden on civic authorities over the longer term.
The Bench’s remarks concerning aggressive dogs also demonstrate that the Court remains conscious of immediate public-safety concerns. Population control is a long-term measure, but authorities must simultaneously deal with individual animals that present an immediate threat to citizens, particularly where dog-bite incidents are involved.
The State’s obligation to maintain adequate rabies-related data and medicines further reflects the need for an effective response when incidents occur. Even with successful population-control measures, dog bites will not disappear entirely. Medical preparedness therefore remains an essential part of the overall strategy.
The Court’s decision to keep the matter pending and review it at regular intervals indicates that the Bench expects measurable progress. The State will have to return to the Court with updated information, allowing the Bench to determine whether the measures being undertaken are sufficient.
The proceedings also highlight the distinction between judicial directions and administrative implementation. The Court can identify legal obligations and require authorities to comply with them, but the detailed execution of a sterilisation programme remains primarily an administrative function. The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction seeks to ensure that the administration performs that function effectively and consistently with law.
The matter therefore remains open for further consideration. The High Court has not yet issued a final dtermination bringing the proceedings to an end. Instead, it