Ranit Kr. Singh , New Delhi The Supreme Court on Monday declined to clarify its recent landmark judgment that, for the first time, expressly permitted local authorities to euthanise rabid, incurably ill, and demonstrably dangerous stray dogs. A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to entertain a plea by the NGO "Animals Are People Too," which sought a declaration that the May 19 ruling does not authorise the indiscriminate culling or poisoning of ordinary strays. Dismissing the application, the bench observed that media reports or political statements cannot become grounds for the apex court to repeatedly revisit its orders, noting that aggrieved parties are free to approach their jurisdictional high courts.

The NGO’s application was prompted by fears that the term "aggressive dog" is undefined in the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, leading local authorities to arbitrarily target healthy animals or remove them from educational institutions. The petitioner had urged the court to mandate that a specialized committee—including a government veterinarian and an animal welfare representative—be required to certify a dog as dangerous before any lethal action is taken. However, the apex court reiterated that high courts nationwide have already been directed to initiate *suo motu* proceedings to monitor the implementation of the stray dog management framework on the ground.

The underlying May 19 ruling marked a major judicial shift, prioritizing human life under Article 21 over animal welfare regulations. The 131-page judgment explicitly held that "unchecked population of dogs has become increasingly feral" and has no place in densely populated or sensitive areas like schools and hospitals. High courts are required to submit compliance reports on state-level dog management frameworks before the Supreme Court resumes hearing the matter on November 17, 2026.