Opinion Supreme Court’s order on stray dogs in Delhi is good for everyone — people and dogs
Permanently removing strays isn’t cruelty but a crucial step toward upholding the fundamental rights of 1.4 billion people and preventing the unnecessary suffering of stray dogs
Stray dogs take shelter at a metro station from rain in New Delhi. (Source: AP Photo) Written by Ryan Lobo
Ninety-nine years ago, in the pages of Young India, Mahatma Gandhi addressed the stray dog menace. He lambasted those who sentimentalised the issue of stray dogs, saying, “Roving dogs do not indicate compassion and civilisation in society; instead, they betray the ignorance and lethargy of its members.” Gandhi emphasised responsible ownership of dogs. His words, rooted in ahimsa, underscored that true compassion involves preventing suffering for both humans and animals, with humans coming first.
Fast forward to August 11, and Gandhi’s vision found judicial resonance in a historic Supreme Court directive. Taking suo motu cognisance of escalating stray dog attacks, particularly on children and the elderly, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ordered the complete removal of stray dogs from the Delhi NCR region within eight weeks. The Bench mandated relocating strays to shelters and prohibiting their release back into public spaces. If obstructed, organisations or individuals could face strict action, including being held in contempt of court. “Infants and young children should not fall prey to rabies,” the Court declared, prioritising public safety over the ineffective Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
This ruling aligns with Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and a safe environment, grossly undermined by India’s 62-80 million stray dogs. In 2024, over 2.2 million dog bite cases were reported, though the actual number is almost certainly much higher. Rabies is primarily transmitted through stray dog bites and claims numerous lives, India’s share accounting for 36 per cent of global deaths. Tragic incidents abound: The elderly, women and children casualties, with CCTV footage of people being mauled coming out of states like Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, and Maharashtra, and cities like Delhi and Mumbai.
The crisis stems from the ABC Rules (2001, updated 2023), that prioritise “animal rights” over public health and safety. Promoted as a humane alternative to culling, the rules mandate catching, sterilising, vaccinating, and releasing stray dogs back to their original locations, perhaps forgetting that sterilised and vaccinated dogs can still bite, kill, spread diseases and cause accidents. The rules call for feeding stray dogs in public and on gated premises, even though this causes territoriality, with ensuing attacks. The rules prohibit even visibly rabid dogs from being euthanised, and mandate releasing even dogs that kill, after a brief observation.
In short, the ABC Rules are “animal rights”-oriented and give stray dogs more rights than people. Protected tigers may be shot if they kill people. Human attackers are jailed, but stray dogs under the rules are released and fed right where they may have mauled or even killed children.
The ABC Rules effectively legalise the homelessness of dogs, turning streets into feeding grounds, exacerbating attacks, as countless delivery workers and school children will attest. The rules conflict with and inhibit the application of acts like the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, Municipal, Panchayat Raj and others’ Acts, which permit the permanent removal of stray dogs.
The ABC Rules are subordinate legislation to the PCA Act and cannot supersede the parent act which is against unnecessary suffering. The Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India vs Nagaraja and Others (2014) also held that animals are not granted fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Rukmini Devi Arundale, who pioneered the PCA Act, envisioned protecting animals from unnecessary suffering, not granting them greater rights than humans. In short, the ABC Rules have subverted a public health and safety issue into an animal rights-inspired policy that has only increased the suffering of both people and dogs.
Globally, effective stray dog management contrasts sharply with the ABC Rules. The US and most of Europe have zero tolerance for strays, impounding and euthanising unclaimed dogs. Australia mandates shooting feral dogs to protect biodiversity, and the IUCN labels stray dogs as an invasive species, requiring control and eradication.
India’s ABC model has failed spectacularly, not due to improper implementation, as NGOs claim, but because it is inherently flawed and unworkable. Even if 90 per cent of India’s millions of strays were sterilised, their release, maintenance, and feeding under the ABC Rules would still perpetuate their negative effects. The unsterilised dogs would quickly make up the numbers.
The Supreme Court’s intervention signals the end of a 25-year failed experiment. By directing the NCR governments to establish shelters and hold obstructors accountable, the ruling restores balance. Permanently removing strays isn’t cruelty but a crucial step toward upholding the fundamental rights of 1.4 billion people and preventing the unnecessary suffering of stray dogs. The order upholds the social contract, restoring the government’s duty to protect lives rather than endanger them under the guise of “animal rights.”
The ABC Rules have profoundly harmed humans, dogs and faith in government and courts over 25 years. This judgment isn’t just relief; it’s a constitutional triumph of sanity over sentiment.
The writer is director, Humane Foundation for People and Animals
Share
