Opinion By standing up for stray animals, India can show the world a better way

First, the SC’s judgments make reference to a newspaper article’s headline, ‘City hounded by strays, kids pay the price’. Unfortunately, irrespective of the veracity of the reporting in this or other similar articles, such headlines tend to be misleading in the false binaries they create. As a polarising narrative gets picked up, crucial details get forgotten or are deliberately ignored. For instance, “kids pay the price” is, in fact, not a consequence of a city being “hounded” by strays; rather, fatalities and serious injuries occur because of the systemic failure of vaccination and sterilisation programmes. Such headlines also miss out on the other side of the story, which the defendants cannot utter because they are – literally – voiceless. Think of the countless acts of violence that are committed against animals, for which the penalty still remains a meagre Rs 50; reflect further on the “attacks” that come from animals trying desperately to defend themselves against brutal “teasing” and worse, and for whom there is scarcely a protective umbrella of the law. In other words, reality is messier than headlines capture (especially of negative stories). The SC’s decision to use such a polarising headline as its “hook” risks exacerbating hate and violence against strays.

Second, as the rulings rightly note, the apparent conflict between humans and animals has arisen due to gross negligence and failure on the part of the authorities to implement ABC rules. What is needed is stringent action against municipal authorities that failed to do their statutory duty for over 20 years. But to now penalise stray animals for human failure, through incarceration and worse, is not justice. It is worth highlighting that stray dogs are territorial animals, often closely attached to their human feeders and friends. Relocating dogs from diverse spaces in small cages will result in grievous injuries; those that do not die of physical trauma will likely die of broken hearts. This is the opposite of the ideals embodied in Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.

Third, it is to the credit of the Court that it reconsiders some of its positions. For instance, the ruling of August 22, 2025, recognised aspects of the previous writ as too harsh and offered constructive clarifications. The problem, however, is that even if the Court reconsiders and re-pronounces, public narratives – especially involving “othering” such as referring to strays as a “menace” – are difficult to reverse. The Overton Window shifts, and animal-haters feel legitimised in taking vigilante actions against the voiceless. Some of the hate could be curbed if the SC were to issue firm rules – in the same writs – against the abuse of animals by residents’ associations, and also hold governmental bodies to account (for instance, “shelters” where there have been some horrifying cases of neglect and abuse of the beings they were supposed to protect). A stay order on municipal corporations against the relocation of animals, until a solution that is “humane” for both humans and more-than-humans is found, would also help in reducing knee-jerk actions with irreversible consequences (for example, deaths of animals; the risk of fatal bites being suffered by the handlers of severely traumatised dogs crammed in small, alien spaces).

Finally, lest it be thought that a humane solution is utopian, we stress that this is not the case. The Netherlands is the first country to have eliminated stray dogs, not by cruel methods of impounding and killing, but through strict implementation of animal welfare laws, encouragement of stray adoptions, and bans on puppy farms. Indeed, the Netherlands put in place a CSVR policy similar to ours – theirs is called Collect (kinder than our use of “Capture”), Neuter, Vaccinate, Return – but their authorities actually implemented the policy, whereas ours did not. Our neighbour, Bhutan, has become the first country in the world to have 100 per cent sterilisation and vaccination of its stray dogs.

If others can do this, so can we. And indeed, so should we. For this is the country whose Constitution upholds compassion for all living creatures, and whose culture regards the dignity of all animals as sacred. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, since 1974, that the right to life or Article 21 of the Constitution is not limited to “mere animal existence”. We need to update our lexicon and get rid of the expression “animal existence”; instead, we should embrace the idea that human beings and animals alike have the right to a dignified life.

Madan Lokur is a former judge of the Supreme Courts of India and Fiji, and is serving as Chairperson, United Nations Internal Justice Council. Amrita Narlikar is Honorary Fellow of Darwin College, University of Cambridge, and Distinguished Fellow at the Australia-India Institute at the University of Melbourne