The growing number of street dogs in the country, especially in big cities, threatens to rupture, for many, the traditional unanimity on canines being best friends of humans. Stray dogs continue to be cared for by a large, and often vocal, section of the population. But as the animal adapted to the modern urban ecosystem, many people started to regard it as a menace. If animal welfare groups reiterated the dog’s traditional ecological roles — as protector, scavenger and predator that keeps pests in check — the arguments of their critics have also been unassailable. Government records show 37 lakh dog bite cases across the country in 2024. The street dog has come to be seen as a public health risk, a carrier of rabies, and a threat to the safety of children, the elderly and working-class people, especially those who work near garbage dumps. So, when the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter last month, after a child died of rabies in Delhi, expectations were raised that the two-judge Bench would take a measured view to help resolve an ecological predicament that tends to ignite passions. However, its order, issued on Monday, generates more questions than answers.
At least two SC verdicts have upheld the ABC Rules. Its critics, however, complain that these rules get in the way of public safety. By engaging with such arguments, analysing its earlier verdicts and giving a patient hearing to the ABC supporters, the Court could have paved the way for a less polarised debate — and ultimately laid the ground for more effective street dog management protocols. It also did not cast its eye on glaring data discrepancies on annual rabies cases in the country — 20,000, according to the WHO; about 50, according to government replies in Parliament. The Bench, instead, chose to dismiss the ABC Rules summarily. The furore following the verdict suggests that the Court may have stoked many more fires than it extinguished.
