The Supreme Court of India, on August 11, 2025, issued a landmark and highly controversial directive: all stray dogs across Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) must be rounded up and relocated to shelters—without being released back onto the streets. The court mandated the creation of facilities for approximately 5,000 dogs in six to eight weeks, complete with vaccination, sterilization, CCTV surveillance, and helplines for bite reporting.
Here’s why the court took this extraordinary step—and why it may come at a high cost for both humans and animals.
1. A Grim Reality: Rising Dog Bite and Rabies Cases
The court characterized the situation as “extremely grim,” citing a steep surge in stray dog bites and a troubling risk of rabies—particularly for vulnerable groups like children and the elderly. Delhi alone reported over 35,000 animal bite cases in the first half of 2025 and 49 rabies cases during the same period. Hospitals see nearly 2,000 bites every day, a number that’s overwhelming the system. These alarming figures prompted the court to prioritize public safety, even at the cost of departing from existing procedural norms.
2. Legal Precedents and Public Interest: Beyond Sentiment
The bench, led by Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, stressed that the judiciary must act “beyond popular pressure,” not swayed by sentiment or activism. The court explicitly signaled that those obstructing the relocation would face stern action—or even contempt of court proceedings. This tone emphasizes a hard pivot: immediate, enforceable public safety over gradual, community-oriented measures.
3. Departing From Two Decades of Policy: Contesting the ABC Rules
India’s Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, long mandated a humane approach: capture, sterilize, vaccinate, and release dogs back to their territories. But the Supreme Court’s new order upends that, imposing a permanent “capture, shelter, retain” model—even quoting The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to drive home its urgency.
Critics—including activists, experts, and even former animal rights minister Maneka Gandhi—call the move both unconstitutional and unscientific, warning it directly conflicts with decades of public health policy and compassionate jurisprudence.
4. Logistics, Infrastructure, and Financial Sustainability: A Daunting Challenge
Delhi faces stark resource limitations: only around 20 ABC centers in operation, able to hold a few thousand dogs—far below the estimated stray population, which may be close to one million.
Estimates suggest feeding a dog costs at least ₹40/day—implying a ₹1,000+ crore annual feeding bill, not accounting for infrastructure, staffing, or medical needs. Maneka Gandhi put expenses as high as ₹15,000 crore with the cost of constructing up to 3,000 sheltered pounds. Many shelters may lack vet care, leading to overcrowding, illness, or worse.
5. Public Opinion Divided: Safety vs. Humane Treatment
Voices across the spectrum reacted strongly:
- Rahul Gandhi argued that blanket removals are “cruel, shortsighted, and strip us of compassion,” advocating for shelters, sterilization, vaccination, and community care.
- Priyanka Gandhi Vadra called the mass relocation “horrendously inhumane”.
- Celebrities like Janhvi Kapoor and Varun Dhawan denounced the order as a “death sentence for dogs”.
- Editorials, such as in the Economic Times, labeled it arbitrary and unconstitutional, arguing that it ignored prior rulings and government policies.
- Simultaneously, experts warned of the “vacuum effect,” where removing dogs creates a void quickly filled by new, unvaccinated strays—potentially worsening rabies risk.
- The WHO and global norms maintain that the most effective strategy remains sterilize–vaccinate–release, not permanent removal.
6. Reconsideration and Next Steps
Amid mounting backlash, Chief Justice B. R. Gavai indicated that the order could be reviewed, signaling the possibility of a more balanced, stakeholder-inclusive approach in upcoming hearings.
Conclusion: When Urgency Meets Uncertainty
The Supreme Court’s directive undeniably stems from a pressing public health issue: escalating dog bite incidents and a persistent rabies threat. But its chosen path—mass relocation—diverges sharply from years of humane, community-led solutions and faces questions of feasibility, legality, and long-term efficacy.
As Delhi authorities race against a tight deadline, the core dilemma persists: can urban public safety and animal welfare be balanced? Or will haste deepen both human risk and animal suffering?
Leave a Reply