RESEARCH PAPER ANIMAL RIGHTS Vs PUBLIC SAFETY:

2025-2026

ANIMAL RIGHTS Vs PUBLIC SAFETY:

“Legal Challenges of Stray Dogs Management in India”

[A legal and Policy Analysis of the Supreme Court Case In Re: City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price (2025)]

ABSTRACT:-

A major question has been surrounded around the Indian Judicial System of balancing the public safety, animal rights and urban governance has resurfaced sharply in India with the Apex Courts suo motu case in August 2025 In Re: City Hounded by Stray, Kids Pay Price (2025).  Triggered by the recent alarming reports of child fatalities and a rise in dog bites, rabies incidents across Delhi- NCR, the court directed the municipal authorities to remove stray dogs from the public streets and house the in shelters and pods. This order has reignited the debate over efficacy of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules,2023, which mandated sterilization, vaccination and return of dogs to their original locations. However, due to the non fulfillment of the same and yet, uprising reports this issue has been taken into account and stricter measures have come into practice. This unprecedented order has sparked nationwide unrest, drawing sharp responses from municipal authorities, animal welfare organizations, public health experts and resident associations.

This Research paper seeks to critically examine the case in detail, contextualizing it within the Indian legal framework, constitutional ethos, and comparative analysis and public health imperatives. Through doctrinal legal analysis and review of secondary literature the paper evaluates whether mass reallocation of strays is feasible, ethical and legally sustainable. The study is concluded by proposing a hybrid governance model combining humane animal management. public safety measures and civic accountability. The paper lastly, states about a sustainable model in India “One Health Strategy”, integrating public health, legal framework, animal welfare and civic participation. 

KEYWORDS:-

• Stray Dogs
• Supreme Court Of India
• Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules,2023
• Public health and welfare
• Rabies
• Animal Welfare and Rights
• Urban Governance
• Child Fatalities

INTRODUCTION:-

The presence of stray dogs on the streets of India is not merely matter of urban aesthetics but is a deeply embedded socio-legal issue that has persisted for decades. India has been estimated to have the highest number of stray dogs in the world; it is a host to 60-70 million stray dogs. For years this developing nation has struggled for the management of its largest population and wide ranging conflicting interests.

The Supreme Court’s suo motu case, In Re: City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price (2025), marks a watershed in this ongoing struggle. There have been triggering series of tragic incidents, including reports of fatal dog attacks on children, delivery persons, old age people in Delhi NCR and a steep rise in rabies related death; this has caused the court to intervene with the unusual urgency.  On August 11^th 2025, a two judge bench issued directions that all stray dogs in Delhi NCR to be removed from the streets within 8 Weeks and housed in municipal or newly constructed shelters. This directive diverged sharply from the framework established under the (ABC) Rules 2023, which mandates sterilization, vaccination of stray dogs followed by their release back into the same locality.

The order has led to set off a storm debate. On one hand, residents and public health advocates have welcomed the courts recognition of safety concerns, particularly in a region where over 10,000 dog bites alone were reported in the year 2024, according to the municipal records. On the other hand, animal welfare organizations, veterinarians and civil society groups have criticized the decision of the court by implying it to be inhumane, impractical and legally inconsistent. They argue that Delhi NCR lacks shelters to house even a fraction of the stray population and that mass reallocation could lead to overcrowding, disease outbreaks and cruelty. Further they argue that (ABC) Rules are not mere guidelines but statutory rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The case thus raises fundamental questions:

• How should law reconcile the right to life and safety of humans with the constitutional recognition of animal dignity

• Can judicial directions replace systematic failures in municipal implementations
• Is the ABC framework itself flawed, or has its failure been one of enforcement rather than design.
• What role should civic bodies, communities and feeders play in achieving a balance between welfare and safety

These questions have been a part of the Indian Court time and again. There have been multiple rulings of courts around India such as the Delhi High Courts 2021 judgment recognizing the right to feed community dogs and restrictive interventions, like feeders be made liable for the dog attacks. The 2014 judgment in Animal Welfare Board v. A Nagaraja expanded the concept of animal rights, observing that animals too are entitled to constitutional compassion under Article 21. Yet the same judiciary has expressed it concern at the inability of local bodies to implement sterilization programs effectively. This 2025 suo motu case appears to reflect this growing judicial impatience, translating into a radical order to confine dogs instead of returning them to their original territories.

Beyond this, the radical step by judiciary is meaningful and worthy as this case highlights the structural governance failures that fuel stray dogs crisis. Municipal bodies often lack funds, veterinary infrastructure and trained personnel. Sterilization rates remain abysmally low. Rabies vaccination campaigns are patchy and inconsistent, contributing to India’s status as the global leader in rabies deaths with nearly 20,000 fatalities annually. Meanwhile, rapid urbanization, uncollected garbage and unregulated feeding practices continue to provide strays with abundant food and shelter. This leads strays to bite the noble persons, even when a person is ordinarily walking, running during morning or delivery persons fulfilling their duties at night. 

The international experience suggests that methods like mass confinement and culling are ineffective and often counterproductive. Romania’s attempt at large scale culling led to international condemnation and was eventually abandoned. Sri Lanka’s program of sterilization when initiated with good funding received success. Thailand’s “catch-neuter-release” approach has reduced rabies prevalence in several regions. This suggests that sustainable solutions require a scientific and humane approach. 

Against this backdrop, this research paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of 2025 Supreme Courts Case, situating it within India’s evolving jurisprudence on animal welfare and public safety. It examines the rights and duties at play, evaluates the feasibility and legality of mass reallocation and considers whether, a hybrid model can offer a viable path forward. The study adopts a doctrinal legal approach, supported by public health data, literature review and comparative views of the society, to frame a set of actionable policy recommendations.  This case is a litmus test for India’s ability to integrate constitutional compassion with practical governance. It challenges courts, governments and civil society to go beyond the reactive measures and envision a humane, sustainable and a scientifically sound strategy for managing one of the country’s most pressing urban challenges. 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-

The research methodology adopted for this paper is qualitative and doctrinal, supplemented by descriptive analysis. The Primary source is Judicial orders of the Supreme Court (August 11, 2025 and subsequent hearings), The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, The (ABC) Rules 2023 and other constitutional provisions. Furthermore, the Secondary Sources are the academic articles, NGO reports, WHO studies on Rabies, newspaper coverage’s and commentary from legal data bases,  the two sources together making this paper impactful and useful for future references as well. Under this paper multiple approaches have been used to make it comprehensive yet, insightful like Doctrinal Legal Research has been used for closely reading the precedent case laws, statutes and administrative rules. Comparative method References has been taken into practice for stray dog’s management policies in countries like Romania, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Interdisciplinary Insights have Public Health data, sociological studies on human animal conflict, and ethics theories. The limitations of this case remain pending; hence conclusions are provisional and subject to further judicial developments

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:-

The discourse on stray dog management in India sits at the crossroads of public safety, animal welfare and laws in India. Multiple studies and laws have been passed timelessly for this alarming issue in India.

• ANIMAL WELFARE AND LEGAL RIGHTS: Studies by learned scholars such as Justice V.R Krishna Iyer (in extra judicial writings) and NGOS like the Animal Welfare Board of India emphasizes that animal’s have intrinsic rights recognized under article 21. The Supreme court in case of Animal Welfare Board v. A Nagaraja 2014 recognized animal dignity as part of the constitutional ethos. Scholars such as Rajeev Dhavan and N.R Madhava Menon have interpreted this as the judiciary moving towards a “rights based paradigm” for animals.
• PUBLIC SAFETY AND RABIES: WHO and Indian Council of Medical Research reports highlights India’s heavy rabies burden with an estimate of almost 20,000 deaths annually, mostly from dog bites. Moreover, the people living, children playing and workers working as domestic helps in urban areas have been consistently trapped by the dogs making it difficult to live and fulfill their duties both during the day and night. Academic works argue that mass sterilization without adequate vaccination coverage is insufficient to break the rabies transmission chains.  Moreover, literature further indicates that sterilization efforts need at least 70% coverage of stray population to stabilize numbers, a benchmark rarely achieved in the Indian cities. 
• URBAN GOVERNANCE: Scholars of Urban studies point to weak municipal implementation of ABC program, lack of shelters, and inadequate budgetary allocations as the core problem. Scholars like Amita Baviskar and Radhika Govindaranj a highlight how uncollected garbage, urban sprawl and weak municipal veterinary infrastructure perpetuate the availability of food and habitat for stray populations. Reports in the Economic and Political Weekly argue that the problem is not the design of ABC Rules per se, but their patchy implementation which has also been criticized by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
• JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS: The legal literature records a patchwork of Judicial interventions across the Delhi High Court’s and Apex Courts. The Delhi High Court in Kusal Sharma v. State (2021) recognized the right to feed community stray dogs subject to regulation. The Bombay high court’s Nagpur bench in multiple orders from 2016-2022 both reprimanded municipal authorities for failing to control bites and protect the feeders from harassment. 
• The Supreme Court’s observation on the feeder liability (2022) mooted the liability on the feeders if “their” dog attacks, sparking debate in legal scholarship about proportionality and feasibility.
• COMPARITIVE INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES:  Studies in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior note that culling often created a “vacuum effect” where often removed dogs are replaced by new arrivals. In Sri Lanka a sustained sterilization drive supported by NGO’S and the government has shown measurable reduction in rabies prevalence illustrating humane methods can succeed with adequate investment. Comparative scholarship thus denotes that long term humane sustainable and scientific strategies aligned with public health goals are more effective than reactive measures.
• GAPS AND EMERGING DEBATES: Despite a body of works, several gaps remain. First, most Indian literature treats stray dog’s management either as a public health issue or as an animal rights concern rarely integrating the two within a unified framework. Secondly, a little empirical research exists on the capacity of Indian municipalities to sustain shelters a question directly relevant to Supreme Court’s order of 2025. Thirdly, there is limited exploration of the legal contradictions between the statutory rules and judicial directions such as the (August 11 reallocation mandate). Lastly, the literature has not sufficiently engaged with the constitutional tensions between protecting human life under article 21 and recognizing animal dignity under the same.
• PRESENT PAPER’S POSITIONING: This paper seeks to bridge these gaps by providing integrated analysis that combines legal doctrines, public health data, governing critique and comparative insights.  Unlike prior studies that addresses the stray dog issues in silos, this research situates the 2025 supreme court case as convergence point  of multiple discourses; constitutional morality, judicial activism, public safety and animal welfare. By doing so it contributes to an emerging literature that recognizes the need for hybrid models of governance.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK:-

The analytical method used in this paper is case law analysis combined with thematic evaluation. The study employs a doctrinal and qualitative research design, supported by secondary data analysis. The focus is on understanding legal, policy, and public health dimensions of stray dog management. A case law analysis approach was adopted, supplemented by literature review and comparative evaluation of international practices.

The case In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price was first initiated on July 28, 2025; herein the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a Times of India report titled City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price which described tragic incidents involving children attacked by stray dogs in Delhi-NCR. A two judge bench comprising Justices J.B Paridwala and R. Mahadevan was constituted. The court under this issued notices to the Delhi government and civic authorities, appointed amicus curiae, and slated the first substantive hearing for August 11, 2025. On August 11, 2025 the two judge bench issued a stringent directive that all stray dogs must be captured, sterilized, vaccinated and permanently relocated to shelters with no release back to the streets. The court ordered the civic authorities to create shelter infrastructure ( starting with capacity for about 5,000 dogs within 6-8 weeks) and maintain daily records of captured and sheltered. Contempt penalties were threatened against any person or organization obstructing the exercise.

Thereafter, on August 22, 2025 there were modifications by a Three Judge Bench (Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V Anjaria) reviewed and modified characterizing the original directive as “harsh” and “idealistic”. The modified order mandated that sterilized and vaccinated, healthy and non aggressive dogs to be released back to their original areas , in accordance with Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules,2023. Rabid or aggressive dogs must remain in shelters and not to be released under any circumstances. 

The court also created designated feeding zones in which municipal ward, prohibited feeding in streets or public places, and empowered authorities to take legal action against violators. Additionally, NGO’s and individual petitioners were required to deposit funds (Rs 2 lakh for NGO’s and Rs 25,000 for individuals) to support stray-dogs infrastructure within 7 days. The case’s scope was expanded nationwide by impleading all states and UT’s requiring compliance reports on ABC Rules implementation.

The following judgments are highly relevant and correct however their correctness is partial as on one hand they do recentre the debate on human safety often sidelined in earlier pro-animal rulings but on the other hand it limited feasibility, as sheltering millions of dogs is impossible without massive infrastructural and financial commitments. The judgment forces accountability on municipalities that consistently fail to meet sterilization targets and trigger public debate, pushing animal welfare policies into mainstream governance discourse. However, Judicial calibration is yet needed as future orders must reconcile urgency with practicality by endorsing a hybrid model. There shall be one health integration by push for national rabies elimination strategy that treats human, animal and environment as interdependent. 

SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVES AND OPINIONS:-

• SUPPORTIVE OPINIONS: Legal scholars argue that court’s reasoning correctly prioritizes human Right to Life and dignity (Article 21) over unregulated animal rights (Kumar, 2023).

Public Health experts contend the decision was long overdue, given WHO data on India contributing to nearly 35% of global rabies deaths annually.

• CRITICAL OPINIONS: Animal law scholars like Alok Prasanna Kumar (2023) caution that order undermines the statutory mandate of the ABC Rules, which emphasizes sterilization- release as the humane and scientifically validated method.

NGO’s argue that large scale sheltering is logistically impossible in Indian cities, where millions of dogs roam free and risks creating “dog concentration camps”

• BALANCED VIEWS: Some commentators suggest the court was correct to highlight municipal inaction but should have ordered strict monitoring of sterilization and vaccination drives rather than blanket removal ( Baviskar,2021)

Therefore, by combining doctrinal analysis with scholarly critique and case tracking this methodology allows the study to not only describe what the court has ordered, but also to interrogate whether those orders are jurisprudentially sound, practically feasible and ethically defensible. 

SUGGESTIONS:-

The Supreme Court’s order of August 11^th 2025, directing the removal of stray dogs from Delhi NCR streets and their reallocation to shelters was unprecedented. While, heavily criticized by animal welfare groups the decision was also a necessary intervention given the alarming public health and safety concerns. The court was responding to the spike in fatal dog attacks on children and reports of rabies related deaths that underscored the failure of municipal authorities to effectively implement the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023. From a public safety standpoint the decision was correct and urgent; it demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to prioritize human life under article 21 of constitution when civic bodies failed in same. However the Judgment of August 22^nd 2025 provided a more humane allocation and dealt with the issue more precisely, it made several changes which would be much practical and helpful for future, it balanced both public health and animal safety.

Below are key suggestions that reconcile the court’s decision with long term solutions

• CLEAR CRITERA FOR AGGRESSIVE DOGS:

• The order rightly held that rabid and aggressive dogs shouldn’t be released . However, “aggressiveness” is undefined”
• The court should direct expert committees (veterinary psychologists, animal behaviorists, municipal vets) to prepare standardized guidelines for identifying aggressive or dangerous dogs to avoid arbitrariness or misuse by municipal staff and better reports by people to municipals for removal of such dogs.
• INFRASTRUTCURE AND FUNDING CLARITY:
• While NGO’s and individuals have been asked to deposit funds, municipal corporations bear the primary responsibility. The court should order ring fenced municipal budgets for ABC and sheltering, audited annually by independent bodies( e.g.- CAG). Reliance on NGO deposits alone risks underfunding and uneven compliance.
• EXPANSION OF SHELTER INFRASTRUCTURE:

• The court was correct to demand shelters, but this must be translated into specific capacity building measures
• Delhi NCR currently has shelter capacity for only a few thousand dogs, whereas the stray population is several lakhs. Rapid construction or retrofitting of shelters is essential.
• Shelters must meet humane standards adequate space, veterinary staff and isolation wards for rabies-suspected cases. The court should mandate that shelters be built according to minimum humane standards perhaps borrowing from OIE (World health organization for animal health).

• MONITORING TRANSPERANCY MECHANISMS:

• Past failures show that sterilization vaccination records are often inflated or falsified.
• A digital tracking system (GIS- tagging, micro chipping, online municipal dashboards) should be mandated to ensure transparency in sterilization, vaccination and release of dogs. The judiciary should appoint a monitoring committee to oversee compliance
• COMMUNITY REGULATIONS AND FEEDING ZONES:

• The judgment allowed feeding zones but implementation guidelines may cause disputes over locations.
• Municipal authorities should designate feeding spots after public consultation, balancing feeder rights, animal needs and resident safety. Feeder groups can also be made jointly responsible  for ensuring dogs in their zone are vaccinated and sterilized.  
• NATIONAL RABIES ERADICATION STRATEGY:

• The court’s decision underscores the need for a national mission on Rabies, aligned with the WHO’s “ZERO by 2030” goal. 
• There shall be annual mass vaccination drives targeting both pets and strays 
• Free availability of anti rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin’s in all primary health centers.
•  Integration of Animal welfare and Public safety under ONE HEALTH APPROACH by directing Union government and state government to frame a National Stray Dog management policy by integrating one health principles. 

• LEGAL AND POLICY REFORM:

• The judgment brought temporary clarity but long term issues remain in the ABC Rules 2023.
• Parliament or the environment ministry should amend the ABC Rules to introduction of graded responses, mandate timelines and annual targets for sterilization coverage
• Penalties shall be established for municipal non compliance.

Henceforth the Supreme Court’s order of 11^th August 2025 was both necessary and correct in principle; however at the same time it requires sweeping relocation mandate required modification for practical feasibility. By taking sustainable and scientific measures India can honor its constitutional duty to protect both human life and animal dignity without compromising one for the other. Therefore, the judgment of 22^nd August corrected this overreach of the earlier order by aligning with the statutory law. However, without definitions, funding clarity, monitoring mechanisms and uniform standards the judgment risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative. The suggestions ensure legal correctness towards practical enforceability. The two were needed and necessary for future safeguards and integration of ONE HEALTH PRINCIPLE

CONCLUSION:-

This research set out to examine the Supreme Court’s suo motu case In Re: City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price (2025) against the backdrop of India’s persistent stray dog crisis. The central question herein, was how to reconcile the right to human safety with the constitutional  recognition of animal welfare, and whether court’s directive to remove and shelter stray dogs in Delhi NCR was justified and sustainable.

The main findings show that court’s decision was necessary and correct as it responded to urgent public health emergency by rising dog bites and deaths by rabies. It also exposed the inaction of municipal authorities and failures in implementation of (ABC) Rules 2023. At the same time the study also found out that mass relocation is impractical and not feasible. A hybrid model combining targeted sheltering of high risk dogs with robust sterilization, vaccination and regulated community management emerges as the most balanced path.

The implications of these findings are significant. They suggest that the judicial intervention can catalyze action but cannot substitute for systematic policy reforms in urban governance and public health policy. The case illustrates the need for integrating India’s stray Dog policy within “One Health Framework” where human health, animal rights and environmental management are treated interdependent.

Future research should focus on empirical assessment of municipal capacity, including shelter infrastructure, sterilization coverage, and vaccination drives to evaluate the feasibility of judicially mandated models. Comparative field research from other countries can also provide valuable insights into designing a practical yet humane approach for animal rights and public safety.

In conclusion: the 2025 case represents more than a dispute about stray dogs; it is a test of India’s ability to harmonize compassion with safety, rights with responsibilities and law with governance.

RESEARCH SUBMITTED BY:

NAME- VRISHTI ARORA

COLLEGE- AMITY UNIVERSITY NOIDA (ALSN)