The Supreme Court’s refusal on Tuesday to modify its November 2025 directions on stray dog removal drew sharp criticism from animal rights activists, while school and college heads said the order left them in a difficult position, with campuses already divided on the issue.Animal rights activists raise concerns over SC’s directions on stray dogsThe court upheld its November 2025 directions ordering stray dogs removed from schools, hospitals, sports complexes and transport hubs, and ruled that sterilised dogs cannot be re-released into these spaces — rejecting arguments that Rule 11(19) of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, which requires sterilised dogs to be returned to their original locality, compelled otherwise. It also endorsed existing legal provisions permitting euthanasia of rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous dogs, subject to veterinary assessment. The court’s order also required unsterilised community dogs to be taken to ABC centres for sterilisation.Animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi said implementation of the court’s November order had been poor, particularly on the establishment of ABC centres. “Not a single proper shelter has been built in any district. Our demand is for authorities to establish adequate and well-equipped ABC centres. The centres that currently exist are poorly maintained. If properly managed centres are built, the entire system can function smoothly,” she said.Supreme Court advocate and petitioner Nanita Sharma raised sharper concerns over the court’s endorsement of existing euthanasia provisions under the ABC Rules. “Until now, euthanasia has reportedly been used only sparingly, but going forward, there is genuine concern that any dog displaying even minor aggression could be subjected to euthanasia,” she said.Sharma also argued that relocating dogs to ABC centres violates Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules — a reading the court directly addressed and rejected in Tuesday’s judgment, holding the rule could not be applied mechanically to institutional areas.“This is a one-sided and unbalanced decision — there is no mention of cruelty against animals, as though only human beings are mistreated,” Sharma added.Alokparna Sengupta, managing director of Humane World for Animals India, said she hoped states and union territories would not “resort to measures that are beyond the scope of established law and scientific process, such as removal or culling of dogs.”BS Vohra, head of the East Delhi Resident Welfare Federation, broadly welcomed the ruling, saying the court had rightly prioritised public safety, but added that action must remain humane, scientific and sustainable, backed by proper sheltering, sterilisation and vaccination.Among school and college heads, opinion was split. Dinesh Khattar, principal of Kirori Mal College, said the campus had sterilised its dogs and deployed two security guards to keep them away from buildings. “If the court’s directive is to remove them completely, then we will take necessary measures,” he said.A government school principal, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the institution’s one stray dog had been removed in January but kept returning. “We are implementing the directions because we are required to do so, but the positive aspects of having dogs on campus — such as the sense of security they provide — are being undermined,” the principal said.