4 min readNew DelhiAug 23, 2025 04:34 AM IST
First published on: Aug 22, 2025 at 01:39 PM IST
Welcoming the Supreme Court’s modified verdict on stray dogs, Maneka Gandhi, former BJP MP and animal rights activist, sought to underline that the way forward needed significant vigilance, especially over the definition of an “aggressive stray dog”. Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, too welcomed the revised order, calling it a “progressive step”.
Modifying its August 11 order on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, the Supreme Court on Friday directed that canines would be released in the area where they were picked up from, after being sterilised, dewormed, and vaccinated. It also said that dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies, and those displaying aggressive behaviour, would not be released back on the streets.
Maintaining that the approach is both compassionate and rooted in scientific reasoning, Rahul posted on X: “I welcome the Supreme Court’s revised directions on stray dogs, as it marks a progressive step toward balancing animal welfare and public safety.”
Maneka, the founder of People for Animals – India’s largest animal welfare organisation – told The Indian Express that for the first time, the order has “given an identity to feeders as a category”.
“I am very happy with this order… It is a very scientific one and also important because it has, for the first time, given an identity to feeders as a category. The government should now give them adequate identification, formally recognising them as feeders.”
She maintained that the “single reason” behind dog bites is the relocation of stray dogs from one place to another. “That dog is in pain, anxious, and does not know where it is – it will bite. If the root of this entire case is that people have been complaining of dog bites, I agree that they were doing so. But I am also saying that this is the reason for it.”
Maneka added that as far as rabid dogs are concerned, it was obvious that they should not be released since rabies was a dangerous disease and would pose a public risk. She did, however, underline the need to define the term “aggressive (stray) dog”.
“There is no question of releasing such (rabid) dogs back. As far as attacks are concerned, it is so far a grey area. The court is yet to define what ‘aggressive dog’ means… Aggression has to be defined,” she said.
“We have, over the last 25 years, received complaints like ‘a dog looked at me, this means he is going to bite me, so it is aggressive; these dogs greet children getting off their school bus, or hang around the playground where they play this means they are looking to bite them; some dogs were lying down, I tripped over them, so one of them bit me’. This is a cover behind which every RWA will seek sanctuary to get rid of the stray dogs in their area simply because they do not want them,” she added.
In addition to the formation of a committee to define “aggressive dog”, Maneka said a supervisory panel to assess its effectiveness also needs to be constituted.
She welcomed the SC decision to designate specific feeding points, terming it one of the “best aspects” of the verdict. “…Boards will have to be installed to designate feeding points; this is the best aspect (of the order)… If your colony has 30 dogs, for example, they can be fed at three separate spots within their respective territories, but not anywhere else,” she said.
Maneka said going forward, there was a need to work on multiple aspects related to the implementation of the order. “We need to create adequate and well-made ABC shelters, and train NGOs which work along with government agencies for these facilities, adequate state funding for their operationalisation and constant vigilance on all these aspects,” she added.
The top court also said that dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies, and those displaying aggressive behaviour, would not be released back on the streets. (File Photo) 
Share
