Chandrima Mondal.[1]
ABSTRACT
Animal cruelty is pervasive and prevalent across urban India, particularly where the stray animal population are high and the existence of civic infrastructure is questionable. Legislative measures such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, represent significant steps toward safeguarding animal welfare. However, these laws fall short because no amount of legislation can mitigate the concerns unless it is the citizens who make a change in society by implementing and abiding by the statutes made. The existing laws need to be changed with rapid changes in society, and mitigating the lack of implementation is the need of the hour. This research explores the already existing legal framework, identifies major gaps in legislation and implementation failures. It also recognises some major judicial directions, such as the landmark judgement on Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) and the recent Supreme Court ruling on stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR region (2025). It will critically examine and shed light upon the challenges posed by irresponsible feeding, industrial exploitation of livestock, as well as the faults counterpart to the people residing in the country.
This research will try to justify the claim that animals are considered a legal entity and highlight the anthropocentric rules that are made for the sole purpose of human benefits. This paper advocates for reforms that recalibrate enforcement mechanisms, raise statutory penalties and reframe animals as legal entities with limited rights, aiming to harmonise societal welfare with humane treatment.
Keywords: Animal Welfare, Animal Cruelty, Sterilisation, Vaccination, Feeders, Prevention, Public Cooperration.
INTRODUCTION
Animal cruelty exists as a serious challenge across urban India, where an increasing population and strained infrastructure have amplified the hardships faced by stray animals. Although the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 lays down provisions against cruelty and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 prescribe measures for humane population control and compassionate intent frequently drives efforts to feed and care for these animals, the effectiveness is compromised by the gaps in enforcement, outdated legal provisions and lack of public awareness continue to perpetuate suffering and conflict.
The Supreme Court of India, in August 2025, acting Suo motu, ordered the removal of all stray dogs from Delhi and NCR streets and their relocation to shelters. The ruling sparked debates across India as the ruling diverged sharply from established Animal Birth control rules by forbidding the release of even sterilised and vaccinated dogs back to their original areas, citing public safety concerns, particularly among children, and instead they are to be put in pounds for their entire lifetime. What brings attention to the prevailing issue is that currently, there are no state-run animal shelters, and there are more than one million stray dogs at present. However, this directive ignited widespread backlash from animal rights groups, legal experts and citizens. Critics found it contradictory to existing humane policies and have raised serious questions about the feasibility of animal welfare. The matter has thus been reassigned to a newly constituted three-judge bench, which might bring certain changes following heated arguments on weighing human safety against animal rights. The urban stray challenge is highly driven by public perception and cultural attitudes, depriving people of their cultural values like feeding strays as a religious act or a charitable duty, sparking controversial debates. On the other hand, a few sections of the human population view strays primarily as a threat to public safety. This nature of duality leads to legal and social tensions while cases of cruelty or illegal culling continue to come to the surface. This paper examines the institutional and legal frameworks for stray animal welfare in India, highlights their shortcomings as well and proposes several solutions that are both humane and effective, grounded in legal reforms, public engagement and better institutional accountability.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study adopts a qualitative, doctrinal research approach supplemented with limited empirical observations. The doctrinal method focuses on analysing existing laws, rules, case laws and constitutional provisions governing animal welfare in India, with special reference to urban stray animals. Empirical elements include observation of municipal stray management practices in major cities in India and secondary data analysis of government and NGO reports. Primary legal sources include the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Animals Birth Control (Dogs) Rule, 2001, the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and key judicial decisions such as Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), as well as the recent Supreme Court ruling on Delhi Stray Dogs.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Several scholars, policy analysts and judicial bodies have contributed to the discourse on animal welfare in India, particularly in the urban stray context. Animals have been declared as legal entities, a landmark precedent for legal personhood that has the potential to influence stray management policy as held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court[2]. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to live with dignity, which applies to animals as well, and the recognition has been prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well under Animal Welfare Board v. Nagaraja[3]. The Directive Principles of State Policies and the Fundamental Duties of the Indian Constitution serve for animal welfare. The provision of Article 48 of the Indian Constitution directs the state to take steps to preserve and improve the breeds and prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, other milch and draught cattle. Reports have found India accountable for approximately 20% of the world’s beef exports as of 2021.[4] India’s approach to animal welfare follows a combination of statutory provisions, constitutional mandates, and judicial pronouncements. While the legislative framework is well-intentioned, its efficiency is often undermined by societal apathy and weak enforcement. Shedding light on the recent issue of removal of stray dogs from the streets of Delhi and the NCR region, which had sparked debate across the country, is contradictory to the provisions mentioned under the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001,[5] that clearly prohibit the culling or relocation of stray dogs. Exceptions are made for cases where they are incurably ill or pose a proven threat. The provision also states that the population control of stray dogs is to be monitored by the local authority through the Animal Birth Control programme. The dogs that are taken to the designated place for the initiative shall be released at the same locality, once they are vaccinated and neutered, from where they were captured. Moreover, non-governmental organisations such as the Blue Cross of India and People for Animals have published reports which show that the sterilisation and vaccination programmes under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 are hampered by inadequate municipal Budgets, lack of veterinary infrastructure and public hostility toward feeding stray dogs.[6]
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS GOVERNING ANIMAL WELFARE IN INDIA.
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 governs animal welfare in India. It criminalises various forms of cruelty that are inflicted upon animals, for instance, overloading working animals and unnecessary confinement.[7] However, the penalties are quite minimal, often limited to one hundred Indian rupees as the highest amount of fine. A life compared with one hundred rupees, quite ironical indeed.
- Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.
Keeping the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, as the parent body, the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 provide guidelines for sterilisation and immunisation of stray dogs after which they are returned to their original habitat.[8] This framework aims to manage the stray population and prevent transmission of diseases as rabies. However, the implementation suffers from inconsistent funding, a lack of specialised personnel and public cooperation.
- Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
Primarily focuses upon wildlife conservation, yet certain provisions of this act indirectly affect the administration of strays, for instance, urban expansion blurring the boundaries between “wild” and “domestic” animals, which leads to jurisdictional conflicts in enforcement.
- Judicial Pronouncements
- Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles – the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules are mandatory and binding and also emphasised that no cruel or indiscriminate killings of stray dogs are permissible even while recognising the need for humane management.[9]
- Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja – The court held that the animals are entitled to lead a life with honour and dignity, the same being recognised under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, applies to the animals as well.[10]
- Supreme Court Directive on Delhi Stray Dogs (2025) – The hon’ble court ordered that all the stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be captured and relocated to shelters and not be returned to their original locations even after sterilisation and vaccination.[11]
LOOPHOLES IN EXISTING LAWS.
Even after the existence of various frameworks, certain gaps still exist and act as a bottleneck in proper implementation, discouraging the effectiveness of stray animal management in India. Primary identification is outdated penalties under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prescribes fines as low as rupees 10 to rupees 50 for the offenders causing harm to animals. [12] these negligible penalties fail to create enough deterrent effect and have been criticised as inadequate by both courts as well as policy experts. Then exists the conflict between judicial directions and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules which mandates release of dogs to their original location post sterilisation and vaccination, yet, the Hon’ble Supreme Court order directs something different contradicting the policy by requiring permanent sheltering, removing the dogs from their homes, i.e. the streets and no plausible decisions upon the supervision upon these animals while being captivated. There are a smaller number of shelters and a population of stray dogs over ten lakhs. This creates uncertainty for municipal authorities and animal welfare organisations. Moreover, lack of a community participation framework leads to irresponsible feeding; there is no statutory framework outlining designated feeding zones, timings or accountability. This created community conflicts and increased court cases between the feeders and the residents.
CHALLENGES IN MANAGING URBAN STRAY ANIMALS
Urban stray animals are often considered a public safety hazard, mostly due to cases involving biting incidents or rabies threats. Stray dogs and cattle are significant vectors of diseases, primarily rabies and other diseases like leptospirosis and bovine tuberculosis as well.[13] Every year, nearly 36% of rabies deaths in the world are witnessed in India; linked to stray dogs in most cases. This clearly shows the lack of policy implementation and infrastructure, which ultimately leads to the conflict between public safety and animal rights. Moreover, implementation of the Animal Birth Control programmes is often held back due to a shortage of veterinary infrastructure, lack of awareness in people, non-cooperation of certain residential societies and municipal budgets are frequently overburdened with priorities like sanitation, water supply, housing, etc and unfortunately, animal welfare is lost beneath the list of priorities. The municipal animal shelters are either non-existent or overcrowded, leading to inhumane conditions and increased mortality rates[14]. The courts often issue orders which are of Bonafide intention, like mandating sterilisation, preventing culling or sheltering direction, unfortunately, it lacks mechanisms to enforce compliance. Municipal bodies, citing financial or logistical incapacity, frequently ignore or dilute these directives. The Supreme Court directive on Delhi stray dogs is a prime example; while the judgment is intended to protect welfare, it left the duty of implementation entirely on the government without locating the already existing infrastructural bottlenecks. Other than these, rapid urbanisation has led to the reduction in open spaces and green zones, forcing stray animals to cohabitate in dense human settlements. Poor waste management, particularly open garbage dumps, is an easy food source which attracts the animals and ultimately encourages the stray population to grow.[15] Many urban residents view stray animals as nuisances rather than sentient beings. Public resistance to sterilisation drives, feeding regulations and shelter expansion continues to be a greater challenge, posing quite a threat to policy execution. Additionally, rapid climate changes and extreme weather events like heatwaves, floods affect the stray animals disproportionately and at times, leading to mass mortality events.[16] Thousands of animals suffer during monsoon flooding or heatwaves due to inadequate shelter infrastructure. Also, cruelty against strays has been criminalised under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, but weak enforcement persists. It has been noticed that the police stations are often reluctant to register FIRs for animal cruelty, treating these cases as non-prioritised offences against the major ones. This lack of enforcement encourages acts of violence against the strays, and the same is justified under the guise of self-defence or curbing “public nuisance”. And, now, if the directive by the hon’ble Supreme Court of India to permanently shelter stray dogs in Delhi creates a precedent and the same is extended nationally could overwhelm shelter systems, require massive public funding and conflict with established animal welfare jurisprudence. In India, stray animals, particularly cows and dogs, are entangled with religious and cultural symbolism. While cows are revered in Hindu traditions, their abandonment after declining productivity has created a significant stray cattle problem in urban centres. Similarly, feeding dogs and other animals is seen as a highly commendable act in some communities but these sentiments complicate regulation as attempts to restrict feeding animals anywhere other than the zones allocated often trigger the public at large. Another evil is the lack of reliable data; effective policymaking requires reliable demographic and epidemiological data. Yet, there is no centralised database of stray animal populations, sterilisation rates or rabies prevalence. Surveys conducted by NGOs and municipal bodies often produce figures that are conflicting and irrelevant to each other, making evidence-based policy formulation almost impossible. For instance, the reports produced by the BMC and Humane Society International have shown Mumbai’s stray dog population as 95,172 in 2014, that declined slightly to 90,757 in 2024, whereas, the independent NGOs estimated the actual number to be notably higher at around 1,50,000, underscoring the challenges of obtaining accurate data for policy planning.[17]
SUGGESTIONS
Addressing the social, administrative and legal challenges of urban stray animal management requires a multi-pronged approach, and the same would require legal reforms, institutional strengthening, public participation, awareness and scientific intervention. First and foremost, legislative amendments should be to strengthen deterrence by amending the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, through an increase in penalties, which shall invoke minimal fear among the offenders. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 prescribes fines up to 20,000 pounds and prison terms for severe offences.[18] A similar proportionality framework can be introduced in India as well by possibly setting fines higher than usual and adding punitive measures as well. Secondly, clear jurisdictional responsibility must be set by setting a dedicated “urban animal welfare authority” at the state level that could mitigate the persistent issues, such as diffusion of responsibility between municipal bodies, state departments and the Animal Welfare Board of India. The designated authority shall be backed by statutory recognition and could streamline sterilisation programmes, vaccination drives and enforcement actions. The authority will be responsible and shall act as a governing body at the state level while ensuring proper vigilance on the municipalities working under supervision, as well as keeping a record of the stray dog population. Similar models exist in Singapore, where the Animal and Veterinary service under the National Parks Board holds singular responsibility for both welfare and control.[19] Thirdly, infrastructural expansion and modernisation are required; overcrowded municipal shelters evoke welfare issues and public health risks. Municipalities must allocate a certain amount of funds under their annual budgets for building and maintaining shelters that meet AWBI’s humane standards.[20] Fourthly, what must be encouraged is the responsible feeding regulations; feeding stray animals is quite a commendable job, unless it provokes aggression in animals due to improper feeding. It is natural that once an animal is fed, it somehow loses its ability of food hunt and certainly becomes reliant on the person feeding it. Irregularities in feeding might trigger such an animal and might also lead to aggression. Therefore, states should frame Feeding Zone Regulations that would designate times and places for feeding, registration of feeders and penalties for littering or public obstruction. Such measures would safeguard animal welfare while respecting residents’ rights. Fifth, municipal bodies should mandate sterilisation and vaccination targets by adopting measurable, time-bound measures ensuring data transparency by publishing monthly progress reports on an open platform, accessible to the public. This way, public trust can be earned and accountability will be ensured. Sixth, proper public education and sensitisation by spreading awareness by promoting the understanding benefits of sterilisation, vaccination and humane coexistence through campaigns using both digital platforms and community meetings. Students who are compassionate to animals can also volunteer for such initiatives and contribute their valuable insights as well. Next is the need for harmonisation between the legal frameworks and judicial pronouncements. The 2025 Supreme Court directive on Delhi stray dogs requiring permanent sheltering sparks conflict with the provision of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, that mandates the release of the animal after the sterilisation and vaccination.[21] A parliamentary or delegated legislative clarification is necessary to establish a uniform national standard that might involve an exception-based framework, which allows permanent sheltering in exceptional public health or safety circumstances. Lastly, with rapid modernisation and the incorporation of technologies, the same must be initiated in the improvement of stray management as well. GPS tagging of sterilised animals, mobile applications for reporting injured animals and online scheduling of sterilisation drives can make programmes more efficient.
CONCLUSION
Urban stray animal management in India currently stands at a crossroad where legislative intent clashes with practical realities. On one hand, there is the constitutional and judicial recognition of animal rights, like in Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja (2014), which serves as one of the landmark rulings on animal welfare and the decision elevated animals from mere property to entities deserving dignity. On the other hand, there are safety concerns for public health, which is supported by the evidence of a rising number of dog bite cases and rabies-related fatalities.
The recent Supreme Court order, which directed the permanent sheltering of Delhi’s stray dogs, is both a policy opportunity and a logistical challenge. If implemented without proper planning and adequate infrastructure will risk replacing one welfare problem of street life risks with another, overcrowded and inhumane shelters. This highlights the requirement of balanced policy-making, which will harmonise compassion with practicality. Effective management will require major legal reforms with updated penalties, institutional clarity to prevent jurisdictional disputes, infrastructural investment in shelters and Animal Birth Control facilities, community inclusion through feeding regulations and public awareness and finally, scientific, data-driven approaches using technology to monitor the progress, evaluation and make other changes if necessary.
Urban stray animals are not a nuisance that needs to be “controlled”, rather are sentient beings with intrinsic value. The gap between policy on paper and implementation on the ground is to be bridged in order to move towards a humane and sustainable model of urban animal management that serves both human welfare and animal rights.
[1] 3rd year BALLB student at University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University.
[2] Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 15 SCC 480 (India).
[3] Animal welfare board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 ¶ 62
[4] OECD/FAO (2017), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2017-2026, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2017-en.
[5] Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, Gazette of India, Dec. 24, 2001
[6] 59th Annual Report 2022–23, Blue Cross of India (Mar. 31, 2023), https://bluecrossofindia.org/uploads/Annual_Report_2022-23.pdf
[7] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, No. 59 of 1960
[8] r. 7(5), Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, G.S.R. 816(E) (Dec. 24, 2001) (India).
[9] Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles &Ors., (2015) SCC OnLine SC 1193
[10]Animal Welfare board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547
[11] Pick up stray dogs, keep them in shelters, SC directs Delhi authorities, The New Indian Express (Aug. 11, 2025), https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2025/Aug/11/pick-up-stray-dogs-keep-them-in-shelters-sc-directs-delhi-authorities
[12] § 11, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, No. 59 of 1960, INDIA CODE (1960).
[13] (World Health Organization, Rabies: Epidemiology and Control Strategies (2018), https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rabies).
[14] (World Animal Welfare Board of India, Annual Report 2021–22 (2022) https://awbi.gov.in/uploads/regulations/169158406641Annual%20Report%202021-22_Eng.pdf
[15] Nagesh Manay, The Living “City” Report: Urban Wildlife and Community, WWF-India (2020) https://www.wwfindia.org/news_facts/wwf_publications/living_planet_report_2020/the_living_city_report/ (last visited Aug. 16, 2025)
[16] IPCC, Technical Summary, in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 112 (H.-O. Pörtner et al., eds., 2022), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/technical-summary/.
[17] HSI/India & BMC Study Finds Sterilization Rate Dropped from 74.8% in 2014 to 62.9% in 2024, Hindustan Times (Apr. 4, 2025), https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/untitled-story-101743708471894.html (last visited Aug. 16, 2025).
[18] Animal Welfare Act, 2006 c. 45 (U.K.).
[19] Singapore Animals and Birds Act, Cap. 7, 2002 rev. ed.
[20] Animal Welfare Board of India, Guidelines for Animal Shelters about Veterinary Facilities, June 9, 2022, https://awbi.gov.in/uploads/regulations/165597080538Guidelines%20for%20Animal%20Shelters%20with%20regard%20to%20Veterinary%20facilities%201_0001.pdf
[21] r. 7(5), Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, G.S.R. 816(E) (Dec. 24, 2001) (India).