Abstract
Stray dogs have become a major concern in India. Media reports of dog attacks and even deaths have fuelled a heated public debate. This issue has sparked intense discussions among government officials and animal welfare activists, who have different ideas on how to solve the problem. This paper explores the complex legal and ethical dilemma between protecting public safety and ensuring animal welfare in India, focusing on the recent Supreme Court order about stray dogs. India faces a difficult situation due to its large stray dog population, with increased dog bites causing public fear. At the same time, animal welfare groups advocate for humane, non-lethal population control. The Supreme Court’s directive to move stray dogs into shelters has made this debate even more intense, as it pits the court’s duty to protect people against existing animal rights and population control policies. The research will analyse the legal rules and policies related to stray dogs in India, like the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2023. It will examine if the Supreme Court’s order is practical, considering the massive challenges of building and running shelters for millions of dogs. The paper will also compare the effectiveness of the court’s proposed relocation plan with the scientifically-backed trap-neuter-release (TNR) or ABC programs that are used globally. The analysis will highlight the conflict between a small but vocal group of animal lovers and the larger public that is concerned about safety. By looking at all sides of this issue, the paper aims to provide a deeper understanding of how to fairly balance public safety with the ethical treatment of animals. The ultimate goal is to suggest a humane and practical way to manage India’s stray dog population that respects both human and animal well-being.
Keywords
Stray Dogs; Public Safety; Animal Welfare; Supreme Court Directive; Animal Birth Control (ABC); Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR)
Introduction
Dogs are the first species to have been domesticated and share a close cultural, social and economic association with humans. The dynamic between humans and animals in India is complex, shaped by a mix of traditional beliefs and contemporary challenges. Although animals hold a revered place in Indian culture and religion, the issue of stray dogs has become a major problem. The challenge is made worse by India’s limited resources for managing the stray dog population compared to many other nations. Despite these difficulties, India has established a legal framework to protect animals, including laws like the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960. These statutes are designed to safeguard both domestic and wild animals, ensuring they are treated humanely and with dignity. A stray dog is a dog in a public space without a person’s direct control. This includes both unowned dogs and those that belong to a community, but not dogs on leashes or under human control during a survey. Their populations can grow quickly due to easy access to food, a lack of predators, few competitors, and the ease of finding a mate. Unlike pet dogs, stray dogs present a number of serious problems. They contribute to environmental pollution and are a source of many parasites and infectious diseases, including rabies and salmonellosis. Stray dogs also cause a variety of other issues, such as traffic accidents, dog bites, and even harm to wildlife populations. Additionally, their presence can have a negative economic impact on tourist areas.
It has come to the courts consideration that 92–97% of human rabies deaths occur due to bites from infected dogs, of which 60% have been caused by from stray dogs in India. On (August 11, 2025) the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking suo motu cognizance of escalating stray dog attacks, particularly on children and the elderly, The Bench mandated relocating strays to shelters and prohibiting their release back into public spaces. This order sparked great debate on menace of stray dogs with respect to their welfare and humane solutions. However, the Supreme Court of India on (August 14, 2025) reserved its order on pleas challenging its August 11 directive to round up all stray dogs from the capital’s streets. Following the public backlash and concerns that the initial order conflicted with existing law, a new three-judge bench was constituted to hear the matter. This new bench, led by Justice Vikram Nath, modified the August 11 order.The new ruling aligns with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and mandates that stray dogs, after being sterilized, dewormed, and vaccinated, must be released back into the same locality from which they were captured. Therefore, the current study was planned to analyse the stray dog menace with respect to animal welfare and the tussle between animal welfare advocates and Supreme Court order.
Research methodology
This study utilizes a multi-faceted research methodology to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal and ethical conflict surrounding stray dogs in India. The research is primarily based on a review of secondary sources. The core of research is based upon an in-depth examination of the Constitution of India and relevant statutes, including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2023. To capture the public and social context, a systematic review of contemporary and archived newspaper articles is conducted. Furthermore, scientific and expert data are sourced from academic journals, and official reports from international bodies. Finally, information from the websites of various animal welfare organizations, government bodies, and legal platforms is used to supplement the research, ensuring a well-rounded approach that integrates legal, socio-political, and scientific perspectives.
Review of Literature
A few notable literatures that the research has focused upon to understand and frame the research are as follows-
- The Supreme Court has often used the parens patriae doctrine, which states that the court is the protector of animals, it was also seen in landmark cases like Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja.
- WHO, Zero by 30: Global Strategic Plan (2018)- WHO’ s “Zero by 30” global plan prioritizes mass dog vaccination, rapid PEP, and intersectoral coordination; sterilization can complement but does not substitute vaccination for rabies control.
- A systematic review comparing “vaccination vs vaccination + sterilization” indicates vaccination is the principal lever for rabies, while sterilization helps population stabilization and may indirectly reduce bites; optimal mixes are context-dependent.
- The vacuum effect—well described in animal-management literature—predicts that removing territorial street dogs creates unoccupied niches that are quickly filled by migrants with unknown vaccination/reproductive status, undermining removal-only strategies.
- Journalistic syntheses and advisories in India have operationalized this concept in policy debates, arguing that catch-and-confine (or cull) approaches are cruel, costly, and counterproductive without concurrent area-wide sterilization/vaccination and waste control.
The Apex Court’s order (August 11, 2025) and reasoning
In a directive issued on August 11, 2025, a two-judge Supreme Court bench, led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, addressed the increasing number of dog bites and rabies cases in the Delhi-NCR. The court’s order, issued on its own initiative (suo motu), prioritized public safety. The controversial ruling included four main points:
- Mass Relocation: Delhi-NCR authorities were instructed to immediately remove all stray dogs from public areas.
- Permanent Confinement: The dogs were to be permanently kept in shelters and not returned to the streets, which goes against the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, that mandate returning sterilized dogs to their original locations.
- Shelter Infrastructure: Authorities were given eight weeks to build shelters for at least 5,000 dogs, equipped with facilities for sterilization, deworming, and vaccinations.
- Legal Action: The court warned that anyone hindering the relocation efforts would face legal consequences, including contempt of court.
The court’s reasoning – Cases of dog bites are increasing because of the ever increasing population of stray dogs in our country. Dog bites can cause severe pain and suffering to effected humans, especially to children, elderly and disabled persons. One has to thereafter undergo a very rigorous and timely process of taking multiple injections. If a person is not aware of the medical treatment or if the injections are not genuine, it would result in a very painful death. Sometimes, the person may not get necessary treatment in timely manner. The disease becomes incurable after 24 hours and results in a certain death. In a number of cases, stray dogs have attacked children, elderly persons and even adults, which have resulted in painful death to the victims at the spot [or soon thereafter]. Stray dogs are also a cause of large number of road accidents, which cause injuries/ deaths of road users. Even if a person may not die of a dog bite, due to evasive action taken by him, he may fall down or hit another vehicle, resulting in death/injury. Hence, the presence of stray dogs on our streets/ public places like airports, railway stations is a direct infringement of our Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1) (d) & 21 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that our streets/ public places should be free from stray dogs.
Balance between public safety and animal welfare
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken a balanced stance between addressing public concerns and ensuring the welfare of stray animals, particularly stray dogs. While acknowledging the necessity of regulating and managing the stray dog population in urban and rural areas to safeguard public health and safety, the Court has underscored that such measures must be implemented in a humane, ethical, and responsible manner, with due regard to the well-being and dignity of the animals involved. The justices expressed their awareness of these challenges and conveyed a strong sense of empathy and concern for the stray dogs, stressing that their lives and rights must be respected and protected at all stages of the process. It unequivocally stated that under no circumstances should any stray dog be subjected to cruelty, neglect, abuse, or forced to live in unhygienic or deplorable conditions. The Court emphasized that humane treatment must remain a non-negotiable priority throughout the entire process. To prevent overcrowding, which can lead to disease, stress, and further suffering, the Court directed all concerned bodies to ensure that dog shelters and pounds maintain adequate space and living conditions. Immediate and effective measures should be taken to prevent any situation of congestion or unmanageable numbers within these facilities.
Also, the Court mandated that all stray dogs housed in shelters must be provided with sufficient food and water at regular intervals. Starvation or neglect in this regard would amount to cruelty and a violation of the animal’s basic rights. Therefore, it is the express duty of the officials and authorities overseeing such facilities to establish a consistent feeding routine and ensure no dog is left unfed or malnourished. To ensure proper supervision and accountability, the Court also directed that at least two responsible and trained personnel must be present at the shelter or pound at all times. A formal duty roster or work schedule should be prepared and strictly adhered to so that there is always human oversight, reducing the chances of neglect or mismanagement.
Moreover, the Court stressed the importance of timely and appropriate medical care for all stray dogs kept in these shelters. It ordered that qualified and trained veterinary professionals must be available to monitor the animals’ health and provide necessary treatments without delay. Special consideration should also be given to weak, sick, elderly, or vulnerable dogs. These animals should, as far as practically possible, be housed separately from the general population in order to receive specialized attention and care suited to their needs.
The backlash against the order
Apart from the court’s reasoning, the decision was met with immediate and widespread backlash from animal welfare groups, activists, and concerned citizens. The reaction was strong and multifaceted, encompassing protests, legal petitions, and extensive social media campaigns.
The moral high ground often taken by animal welfare advocates is increasingly being met with public criticism, revealing a deep-seated tension between compassion and the reality of fear. This conflict is particularly evident in urban centres, where a perceived “vocal minority” of animal lovers, who are often well-off and live in safer, more controlled environments, advocate for policies that prioritize the humane treatment of strays. Conversely, a “silent majority” of the population, particularly in less-affluent or more densely populated areas, lives with the tangible threat of dog bites and rabies. This divide highlights how socio-economic and geographical factors shape one’s perspective on the issue, creating disconnect between those who prioritize animal rights as an ethical imperative and those for whom public safety is a daily concern.
Outrage over the court’s order quickly escalated into legal challenges. Various animal welfare advocates filed petitions in the Supreme Court to stay this order. The petitioners argued that the order represented a judicial overreach and a clear violation of existing law, specifically the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2023. Furthermore, they presented scientific evidence to demonstrate the flaws in a mass relocation strategy, explaining the “vacuum effect”—a phenomenon where removing a dog population simply creates a void for new, potentially un-sterilized dogs to fill, thus increasing the risk of rabies and territorial disputes. Finally, the petitions also underscored the immense logistical and financial hurdles, asserting that it would be impossible for municipalities to create and manage shelters for millions of dogs without risking overcrowding, the spread of disease, and potential culling.
The need for harmonious construction
The Hon’ble CJI Gavai had shifted stray dog relocation case from two-judge to three-judge Supreme Court bench. The new bench, headed by Justice Vikram Nath and comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, on August 14, reserved its order on an interim plea seeking a stay on the earlier directive that stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) be shifted out en masse to shelters on city outskirts.
The question of whether humans or animals have greater rights under Indian law is a complex one, involving the harmonious interpretation of several constitutional provisions. The Indian Constitution’s Article 21 guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty to all citizens, a right of paramount importance in a democratic society. However, in accordance with Article 12’s definition, this right can only be exercised if the state has taken away a person’s life or personal liberty. Article 21 does not apply to private individuals who violate this right. The Constitution also places duties on both the state and its citizens to protect animals. Part IV, the Directive Principles of State Policy, and Part IVA, Fundamental Duties, outline obligations to preserve the nation’s forests, wildlife, and natural environment. Specifically, Article 51A(g) mandates a fundamental duty to “protect and improve the natural environment… and to have compassion for all living creatures.”
In cases where different laws appear to be in conflict, courts must interpret them harmoniously to ensure that fundamental rights are protected while also upholding environmental and animal welfare duties. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that even though fundamental duties are not directly enforceable, they provide crucial guidance for resolving legal and constitutional disputes. The court has recognized that Article 51A(g) lays the groundwork for a jurisprudence of environmental protection, placing a shared responsibility on both the state and its citizens.
One principle was demonstrated in the landmark case Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja, which challenged the legality of bull racing (Jallikattu). The Court invoked the parens patriae theory, asserting its role as the protector of animals, who are helpless against human actions. The ruling emphasized that the court must invalidate any regulations that undermine the spirit of welfare legislation and constitutional values.
As the Article 51A(g), known as the Magna Carta of Animal Rights lays the groundwork for a jurisprudence of environmental protection, together with it the rights and liberties of the citizens must also be considered and there must be harmonious decisions with respect to both public safety and animal welfare views.
The “reverse” order (august 22, 2025):
Following the public backlash and concerns that the initial order conflicted with existing law, a new three-judge bench was constituted to hear the matter. This new bench, led by Justice Vikram Nath, modified the August 11 order.The new ruling aligns with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and mandates that stray dogs, after being sterilized, dewormed, and vaccinated, must be released back into the same locality from which they were captured. An exception was made for dogs that are infected with rabies, are suspected of being rabid, or are exhibiting aggressive behavior. These dogs can be kept in shelters or quarantined.
Suggestions
- An effective and humane strategy for managing stray dogs must prioritize long-term, comprehensive solutions over temporary measures. Large-scale sheltering and killing are both ineffective and cruel. Mass sheltering is impractical due to the high risk of disease in crowded spaces, lack of funding, and logistical challenges.
- Similarly, culling is not a viable option; it is inhumane and scientifically proven to be a failed approach. Killing dogs creates a “vacuum effect,” allowing un-sterilized dogs from other areas to move in and reproduce, which ultimately worsens the problem.
- The most sustainable solution is the Catch-Neuter-Release (CNR) program. This method humanely manages the population by sterilizing and vaccinating stray dogs before returning them to their territories. The World Health Organization (WHO) endorses CNR as a scientifically sound way to stabilize and gradually decrease the dog population through natural mortality, while also mitigating public health risks. For CNR to succeed, it must be combined with public education and strong laws to prevent pet abandonment.
Conclusion
The above discussion covered both the positive and negative facets of the directions which are to be followed by state and authorities to reduce the risks of harm by stray dogs. While the Supreme Court’s directive to relocate stray dogs aimed to safeguard human life and uphold the fundamental rights of citizens, it simultaneously brought to light the practical and ethical challenges of such a policy. The analysis of this issue has revealed a significant divide between public safety concerns and the principles of humane treatment, as championed by animal welfare advocates. Ultimately, a harmonious and lasting resolution to this issue must move beyond a simple dichotomy of “human vs. animal” rights. By prioritizing sterilization and vaccination, this strategy systematically stabilizes and reduces the stray dog population, thereby mitigating the risk of rabies and bites while upholding the constitutional duty to show compassion for all living creatures. This approach not only respects the rights of both humans and animals but also provides a sustainable framework for managing a national challenge with dignity and effectiveness.
Harshita Jain,
Trinity Institute of Professional studies (GGSIPU)