New Delhi, Jan. 8 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that it has not ordered the killing of stray dogs and emphasised that roads and institutional premises must be kept free of strays in the interest of public safety, even as it came down hard on municipal authorities across states and Union territories for failing to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. A bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria underlined that its earlier directions in November were limited to removal of stray dogs from institutional areas and seeking accountability from local bodies over years of non-compliance with statutory obligations under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. "We have not ordered 'capture the dogs and shoot them'," remarked the bench, making it clear that its intervention was aimed at enforcing the ABC framework rather than dismantling it. "We are monitoring that they start following the ABC Rules." The bench stressed that the presence of stray dogs posed dangers beyond dog bites, particularly on roads and in high-footfall public spaces. "It is not only the dog would bite and chase somebody and an accident can occur. While they are running on the road it is a problem. They might not bite, but they still cause accidents. Prevention is always better than cure. The roads have to be clear and cleaned of dogs," the bench observed. Responding to submissions made by a bunch of senior lawyers that dogs largely remain within compounds, the bench said such claims were "outdated" and divorced from ground realities. The court reiterated the scope of its November order, saying it had not interfered with the regime governing stray dogs on public streets, but had confined its directions strictly to institutional spaces. "We haven't made any observation or order on stray dogs on the street. Our order was confined to institutional areas. You will agree with us that institutions are not public streets. Why should there be dogs in schools, hospitals and office areas?" Throughout the hearing, the bench repeatedly pointed to the systemic failure of municipal authorities as the root cause of the crisis. "It is clearly the fault of the municipal bodies of not following the ABC Rules and that's what we are doing," said the bench, adding that the court was merely reiterating what the rules already mandate. It noted that despite repeated directions, many states had failed to file affidavits explaining steps taken to implement sterilisation, vaccination, shelter creation and waste management. States that had not complied, the bench warned, will face strict action. Senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, KK Venugopal, Colin Gonsalves, Anand Grover and CU Singh, appeared for animal welfare groups and institutions, arguing that blanket removal and non-release of dogs from institutional areas ran contrary to the statutory mandate under the ABC Rules, which require sterilised and vaccinated dogs to be returned to their original territories. They warned that abrupt removal could lead to a "vacuum effect", allowing unsterilised dogs to move into vacated areas, worsening public health risks. Some of them also sought the constitution of expert committees comprising animal husbandry departments and other stakeholders to assess institution-specific solutions, decentralised management and infrastructure constraints. Pending such reports, they urged the bench to keep the November directions in abeyance. Responding, the bench said that it could not ignore the statutory failure of authorities or allow public safety concerns to be indefinitely postponed. "Because authorities are not complying, people should continue to suffer?" asked the bench, observing that directions on stray dog management had been issued as far back as 2018 with little to show on the ground. Senior counsel and amicus curiae Gaurav Agrawal placed on record affidavits filed by states, pointing out that several large states had either failed to file responses or submitted incomplete data on ABC infrastructure, shelter capacity and highway safety measures. The bench was informed that in many cases, there were insufficient shelters or sterilisation centres, making removal impractical even where required. Some affidavits, the amicus said, were "very disappointing" and did not capture concrete steps taken to restrain the ingress of stray animals into sensitive zones. On November 7, the same bench had directed all states and Union territories to ensure removal of stray dogs from educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots and railway stations, holding that such dogs could not be released back into the same premises after sterilisation. Calling the rise in dog-bite incidents a matter of "human safety concern", the court had ruled that re-release would "frustrate the very effect" of securing institutional spaces. While stressing that the ABC Rules remain the governing framework, the court had carved out a clear exception for high-risk, high-footfall institutional premises, citing poor implementation, inadequate sterilisation, weak waste management and lack of perimeter controls....