Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules 2001 take precedence

The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 has been enacted under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, to reduce the dog population by sterilisation and minimisation of stray dogs with the support and assistance of animal welfare organisations, private individuals and local authorities. Every citizen needs to know about the basic provision of the law to prevent the mass killing of dogs and protect them with due care and precaution.

As per some news reports the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench on Thursday (20th October 2022) issued a slew of directions regarding the feeding of stray dogs and also directed civic officials and the police to take “stern action” against anyone obstructing them from acting against the ‘menace’ of stray dogs.

Police Act is state law and central laws take precedence over them. The Constitution takes precedence over them and the citizens’ fundamental rights are supreme as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

WE REQUEST ALL DOG LOVERS TO STAY CALM AND NOT GET WORRIED. Such orders/directions from High Courts in the past which evoke the state Police Act to prevent the care and feeding of stray dogs have all been dismissed or stayed by the Supreme Court of India.


  1. A High Court order of a particular state is binding in that state and in every state in the union of India – unless there are orders passed in other High courts or in the Supreme Court which take precedence over that order.
  2. In this matter of feeding stray dogs there are several judgements in the Chandigarh bench and Delhi and others specifying that stray dog feeding is allowed and should be in a manner consistent with the territorial nature of dogs, the safety of residents and in designated areas.
  3. There was a stay on a particular Delhi order in the Supreme Court around stray dog feeding which has been now been vacated.

So any High Court order which is contrary to the current laws can simply be challenged and a stay order can be taken in the Supreme Court.


The AWBI guidelines for feeding stray dogs in residential and other localities were created to make sterilisation and yearly anti-rabies vaccination of stray dogs possible and that would result in controlling and reducing the population of stray dogs and eliminate rabies – these are very important and are for the larger public good.

Killing or relocation of stray dogs does not reduce their population. In fact, they breed even faster when such incidents happen. There is enough scientific proof and worldwide countries have more to sterilisation as a method to control and manage the stray dog population.


Some of the legal precedents and orders are mentioned below for your reference. High court orders which went against the PCA act 1960 and ABC (Dog Rules) 2001 were stayed by the Supreme Court.

  • Delhi High Court order on the feeding of stray dogs in New Delhi on February 4th 2010 by Hon’ble Justice VK Jain ordered the identification of suitable sites in the colonies for the purpose of feeding the stray dogs as per guidelines framed by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).
  • Bombay High Court judgement on the elimination of ‘nuisance’ stray dogs: A three-judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising former Chief Justices Dr S Radhakrishnan, Dilip Bhosale, and Vijaya Tahilramani pronounced two judgments on 19th December 2008, which were later STAYED by the Supreme Court.
  • 2001 PIL by “Stray Dog Free Bangalore” and others at the Karnataka High Court, DISMISSED by the Chief Justice recording an expectation that the authorities (with the aid of the Monitoring Committee and others) would “go on monitoring the stray dog control program.”