Opinion SC shift on stray dogs is welcome — and humane
The solution to overcrowded shelters is humane euthanasia, or “compassion”, constitutionally speaking — a quick end to unnecessary suffering
The current election campaign also brings out another facet of Maharashtra's current political picture. In his article (‘To resolve the street dogs issue, use reason and compassion, not fear and cruelty’, IE, January 3), D R Mehta uses misinformation under the guise of enlightened advocacy. Claiming to champion compassion, he ignores the fundamental rights violations and wildlife devastation caused by India’s ~80 million stray dogs. His defence of the Animal Birth Control Rules — sterilise, release, and maintain strays on streets — worsens the problems he downplays.
Mehta questions the Supreme Court’s “special attention” to stray dogs amid case backlogs, implying bias. The Court is upholding Article 21, the right to life and a safe environment for India’s citizens. Stray dogs bite millions annually, cause traffic accidents, deposit thousands of tons of pathogenic faeces daily, and spread diseases. This is a genuine public health and environmental emergency, not elitist hysteria. The SC has begun addressing it by mandating stray removal from public institutions and highways.
Mehta criticises the Court for issuing orders “without hearing the other side,” parroting pro-stray lobbyists. But the Court need not consult NGO lawyers when safeguarding human rights at scale. Victims of mauling went unheard, too, yet Mehta ignores this. The issue is human health and safety, not animal rights. The Constitution grants no fundamental rights to animals (affirmed in the 2023 Jallikattu judgment) but does to humans. Mehta absurdly elevates the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) as the “executive authority”, overriding the SC. This is legally baseless. The AWBI is merely an advisory body.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act tasks the AWBI with ensuring unwanted animals are “destroyed” by local authorities when necessary. Section 11(3)(b) expressly excludes stray dog destruction from cruelty. Yet the AWBI has blocked such actions for decades, defying its own mandate. Mehta ignores this while championing ABC Rules that contradict over 60 laws (including municipal/panchayat acts) allowing stray dog removal/destruction.
Mehta invokes “compassion” as a fundamental duty and cites the Netherlands, but errs: Duties cannot override fundamental rights. The Netherlands mandatorily impounds all strays — with zero release and feeding. Its tiny stray population requires minimal euthanasia. Global success stories emphasise owned-dog sterilisation and impoundment/euthanasia for unwanted animals. Mehta’s framing reveals a double standard: Developed nations impound and euthanise strays for safety, yet India is expected to show endless “compassion” by abandoning and maintaining dogs on streets via the ABC Rules, institutionalising homelessness and suffering for dogs, wildlife and humans.
Worst, Mehta repeats activist tropes: Sterilisation and feeding make strays “friendly,” the poor “love” them, and critics are “elites”. Yet the poor aren’t protesting Supreme Court orders, hiring lawyers, or joining pro-stray protests. Instead, they’re queuing at rabies clinics, dodging dogs on the roads, or grieving — like the elderly man in Bengaluru’s Kodigehalli killed by strays released via the ABC Rules, after they killed a woman.
Mehta’s “solution” — more ABC — ignores its failures. True compassion requires decisive, constitutional action. Repeal the ultra vires ABC Rules and enact clear euthanasia protocols under Section 38(e), aligned with the AWBI’s mandate, and more than 60 laws. Promote shelters to house unwanted animals and remove them from the streets as per the PCA Act/AWBI objectives. Impose a full ban on any public feeding to reduce territoriality, accidents, and bites. Authorise lethal measures by authorities and citizens in rural/wildlife areas — where strays threaten livestock or wildlife, as in most nations. Enforce pet licensing, leash laws, and owner liability to prevent pets from straying or being abandoned.
The solution to overcrowded shelters is humane euthanasia, or “compassion”, constitutionally speaking — a quick end to unnecessary suffering. It is crucial to note that the PCA Act is against “unnecessary suffering” and not necessary suffering that may be caused out of human necessity or to protect human rights. Thus, butter chicken and euthanasia for unwanted dogs is legal. The Supreme Court’s shift is welcome; full implementation is essential.
The writer is director, Humane Foundation for People and Animals
Share
