Supreme Court Orders Mandatory Fencing of Public Spaces Amid Alarming Rise in Dog-Bite Incidents

By Advocate Amarjeet Singh Panghal
Public Rights Action Network (PRAN)

The Supreme Court of India has issued an important order directing that all educational institutions, hospitals, public sports complexes, bus stands and depots, railway stations, and similar public facilities must be properly fenced to prevent the entry of stray dogs, in light of the alarming rise in dog-bite incidents across the country.

These directions were issued in the ongoing proceedings concerning the stray dog menace, where the Court has been monitoring public safety concerns, municipal responsibilities, as well as the implementation of animal welfare and rabies control measures.

Understanding the Stray Dog Menace: Data and Legal Context

India has one of the world’s largest stray dog populations. Various official sources show:

1.5–2 crore stray dogs (Municipal Affairs & Urban Development data; Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 250, 2022).
1.8 crore dog-bite cases annually (Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme Data – IDSP).
Nearly 20,000 rabies-related deaths per year (World Health Organization; MoHFW).
Children constitute nearly 30–35% of dog-bite victims (National Centre for Disease Control – NCDC).

The Court noted that repeated dog attacks—particularly involving children on school premises and patients outside hospitals—require urgent and structural interventions rather than superficial steps.

Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Concern & Case Background

The present order emerges from a group of matters relating to stray dog attacks, including:

Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (PEST), Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 691–692 of 2009.
Connected PILs involving stray dog attacks in Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Delhi.
The Court’s suo motu observations during hearings on preventable attacks on children and vulnerable citizens.

The Bench noted that several state governments have failed to implement the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 and the revised Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, leading to unchecked stray dog populations.

The Court also referred to earlier decisions including:

A. Nagaraja & Ors. v. Animal Welfare Board of India (2014) 7 SCC 547,
which held that animal welfare is important but must be balanced with public order and safety.
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC 534,
on the principle that public safety and public health can justify reasonable restrictions.

These principles informed the Court’s present intervention.

Key Directions Passed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court mandated that:

All schools, colleges, universities, and learning campuses must install proper fencing or secure boundary walls to prevent stray dog entry.
Hospitals, PHCs, CHCs, and major medical facilities must ensure complete perimeter fencing and gating.
Bus stands, depots, and railway stations must create controlled access areas with physical barriers.
State governments and municipal bodies must file compliance affidavits and cannot delay citing lack of funds.

The Bench noted that failure to implement preventive measures would amount to a violation of Article 21, as unsafe public spaces deny citizens their right to life and dignity.

Court’s Observations (With References)

1️⃣ Article 21 — Right to Life Includes Safe Public Spaces

The Court reiterated that under Article 21 of the Constitution, authorities are obligated to ensure safety in public institutions.
(See: Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, (1980) 4 SCC 162)

2️⃣ Municipal Negligence Cannot Be Excused

Local bodies are statutorily responsible under:

Municipal Corporation Acts of respective States
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023

The Court emphasized that failing to regulate stray animals amounts to dereliction of statutory duty.

3️⃣ Precautionary Principle Applies to Public Safety

Citing the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, the Court highlighted that preventive measures must precede harm in matters affecting public health.

4️⃣ Children and Patients Are the Most Vulnerable

The Court referenced multiple affidavits detailing attacks inside:

School premises
Anganwadi centres
Hospital entry gates
Railway platforms

The Bench remarked:

“A child must be safe inside school premises. A patient must be safe while entering a hospital. Authorities cannot wait for more tragedies.”

Why This Judgment Is Significant

1. Places Clear Accountability on State and Local Bodies

The Court has moved beyond guidelines to hard directions enforceable through contempt.

2. Balances Animal Rights with Human Safety

The ruling respects the Welfare of Stray Dogs, but prioritizes human life, consistent with Articles 21, 47 (duty to improve public health), and 48A.

3. Addresses Structural Causes

The Court noted that stray dog populations increase due to:

Lack of sterilization
Poor waste management (Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016)
High garbage accumulation near public facilities

4. Creates a National Framework for Safety

The directions apply to all states and union territories and are to be monitored in subsequent hearings.

Legal Significance

The judgment strengthens:

Right to Life & Safety (Art. 21)
State liability for public safety failures
Municipal responsibility under public health laws
Judicial oversight under suo motu powers
Enforceability of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023

It also builds upon constitutional jurisprudence that prioritizes human dignity and safety over administrative inaction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intervention comes at a crucial moment when India is witnessing a significant rise in dog-bite attacks and rabies-related deaths. By making fencing mandatory for schools, hospitals, transit points, and other public spaces, the Court has taken a decisive step to ensure citizen safety, especially for children and vulnerable groups.

This order firmly establishes that public safety is a constitutional mandate, and authorities must act swiftly and structurally, not reactively.

PRAN will continue to monitor compliance, document gaps, and advocate for balanced, humane, and effective stray dog population management.

Disclaimer:
This blog is intended for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Consumer disputes and product liability cases depend on specific facts, evidence, and circumstances. Readers should seek independent legal consultation before initiating legal action. PRAN and the author disclaim any liability arising from reliance on the content provided here.

About PRAN:
PRAN (Public Rights Action Network) is an independent legal and public-interest initiative led by Advocate Amarjeet Singh Panghal. PRAN works to strengthen consumer protection, improve access to justice, support evidence-based policymaking, and promote safe, equitable, and accountable governance. Through legal research, public education, advocacy, and collaboration with civil society, PRAN strives to protect citizens from unfair practices, unsafe products, and systemic failures.

════════════════════════════════════════════════

PUBLIC RIGHTS ACTION NETWORK (PRAN)

Consumer Rights | Public Health | Accountability | Access to Justice

publicrightaction@gmail.com • pranindia@zohomail.in • +91 9829015812

twitter: @ActionPran | linkedin.com/company/109035137 | youtube.com/@PRAN-f4e

═══════════════════════════════════════════════

#SupremeCourtOfIndia #DogBiteIncidents #StrayDogMenace #PublicSafety #RightToLife #Article21 #LegalUpdate #PublicHealth #MunicipalGovernance #AnimalBirthControl #UrbanSafety #SafetyFirst #PRAN #PublicRightsActionNetwork #LawAndJustice #IndiaLaw #ConstitutionalLaw #JudicialIntervention #HumanSafety #CivicResponsibility #CourtDirections #PublicInterest #AccessToJustice #LegalAwareness

Public Right Action Network (PRAN)

Thursday, November 6, 2025