The Supreme Court of India has upheld directives for the removal of stray dogs from institutional areas and has introduced a legal provision for the euthanasia of dangerous canines to ensure public safety.

印度最高法院維持了將流浪狗從機構區域移除的指令，並引入法律條文，允許將危險犬類執行安樂死以確保公共安全。

The judicial determination, delivered by a three-judge bench, reaffirms the November 2025 mandate requiring the extraction of stray dogs from high-footfall institutional zones, including medical facilities, educational institutions, and transit hubs. The court explicitly prohibited the re-release of these animals into such areas post-sterilization, asserting that the right to a dignified existence necessitates freedom from the threat of canine attacks. This position was reinforced by the dismissal of petitions seeking a modification of these directives or a challenge to the Animal Welfare Board of India's (AWBI) standard operating procedures.

這項由三名法官組成的法庭裁定，再次肯定了 2025 年 11 月的指令，要求將流浪狗從人流密集的機構區域（包括醫療設施、教育機構及交通樞紐）移除。法院明確禁止這些動物在絕育後重新放回此類區域，並主張享有尊嚴生活的權利必須包含免於犬類攻擊威脅的自由。由於法院駁回了要求修改這些指令或挑戰印度動物福利委員會 (AWBI) 標準作業程序的請願，此立場得到了進一步強化。

Central to the ruling is the authorization of euthanasia for dogs classified as rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous. This measure is contingent upon veterinary assessment and strict adherence to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The court characterized the current proliferation of dog-bite incidents—citing specific high-frequency data from Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu—as a failure of state administration. Consequently, the bench directed all States and Union Territories to establish at least one fully functional ABC center per district and to ensure the availability of anti-rabies vaccines in government pharmacies.

裁決的核心在於授權對被歸類為患有狂犬病、不治之症或顯然危險的狗執行安樂死。此措施取決於獸醫評估，並須嚴格遵守 1960 年《防止動物殘忍法》及 2023 年《動物出生控制 (ABC) 規則》。法院引用拉賈斯坦邦與泰米爾納杜邦的高頻數據，將目前狗咬事件的激增定性為政府行政失敗。因此，法庭指示所有邦與聯邦領地在每個區至少建立一個功能完善的 ABC 中心，並確保政府藥局有狂犬病疫苗供應。

Stakeholder responses exhibit a significant divergence. Animal rights advocates, including Maneka Gandhi and Nanita Sharma, have contended that the directives are practically unimplementable due to a systemic lack of shelter infrastructure and have expressed concern that the 'demonstrably dangerous' criterion remains insufficiently defined, potentially inviting administrative abuse. Conversely, some civic representatives and resident welfare associations have welcomed the prioritization of human safety. To facilitate enforcement, the court provided legal immunity to municipal officials acting in good faith, while simultaneously warning that non-compliance by state authorities would result in contempt and disciplinary proceedings.

利害關係人的反應呈現顯著分歧。包括 Maneka Gandhi 與 Nanita Sharma 在內的動物權利倡導者認為，由於缺乏系統性的收容設施，這些指令在實際操作上無法執行，並表示擔心「顯然危險」的標準定義仍不足，可能導致行政濫權。相反，部分公民代表與居民福利協會則對優先考慮人類安全表示歡迎。為了促進執行，法院為出於善意行事的市政官員提供法律豁免，同時警告若政府部門不遵守，將導致藐視法庭及紀律處分。

The Supreme Court has shifted the management of stray dogs toward a more stringent, safety-centric model, delegating compliance monitoring to the various High Courts.

最高法院已將流浪狗管理轉向一種更嚴格、以安全為中心的模式，並將合規監控委交給各高等法院。