On August 11 2025, the Supreme Court of India directed all authorities in the National Capital Territory — extending to Delhi, Noida, Gurugram and Ghaziabad — to immediately relocate all stray dogs from all localities in the region. The apex court ordered all street dogs to be shifted to dog shelters, from where they must not be released under any circumstances. Any individual or organisation found to obstruct the work of authorities capturing and moving the dogs shall face legal consequences.
The order came from a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, hearing a suo moto case initiated by the court, after it took note of media reports on stray dog attacks and rabies-related deaths in the NCT. The order stressed the need to address the ‘extremely grim’ situation at hand, and eradicate the ‘menace of dog bites leading to rabies.’
Highlights of the order:
- State of NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) must immediately provide dog shelters for around 5,000 dogs in the next 6 to 8 weeks and report on the creation of such infrastructure across the NCT. The number of shelters has to be increased over time.
- All relevant authorities must maintain a record of daily stray dogs captured and housed in shelter homes, records of which must be produced in the next date of hearing.
- Not a single stray dog picked up from any part of a locality should be released.
- Authorities must create a helpline within one week for all dog bite cases to be reported.
- Any hindrance or objections caused by any individual or organisations in the smooth and effective implementation of these directions will be viewed as contempt of the Court, and attract appropriate legal action.
This order and some observations made by the judges have expectedly given rise to a lot of debate, polarisation and concern. There is considerable scepticism, not just around the practicality of the move, its humane quotient, or what it means for the fate of lakhs of street dogs in the region, but also the outcomes it could likely spur.
1. Capture and relocation of dogs unrealistic
Over the years, Citizen Matters has interacted with various community groups, NGOs, animal activists and experts to understand what could be the most workable and sustainable solution to India’s very real and grave problem of street dogs. In the wake of the Court order, we look back at our findings and the insights we have gathered, and find ourselves grappling with several contradictions that surface.
The hope of relocating dogs en masse to make our streets risk-free is premised on the assumption that authorities will be able to capture them efficiently and seamlessly, with minimal misses, and within a reasonably short time frame. And yet, this is not the first time that we will be trying this. There are records of Chennai running a ‘catch-and-kill’ programme till as recently as 1996, but which proved to be totally ineffective in reducing the street dog population perceptibly. In fact, it backfired by increasing the life expectancy of dogs, as there were more resources now for a smaller dog population in the absence of complete capture.
Even in the implementation of ABC programmes, it has been seen that the rate at which dogs are captured and sterilised is consistently outpaced by the continuing population growth of dogs.
Under the circumstances, the court’s expectation that all, or a majority of, dogs from the streets of the capital can just be removed within eight weeks seems to be a bit of a pipe dream.
Read more: Addressing pet dog attacks: A balance between regulation and compassion
2. Need for a population census for strays
The success of any dog population management programme depends on a clear pre-knowledge of how many dogs are present in a targeted area. In the context of sterilisation programmes, experts have repeatedly pointed out that in the absence of a population census for street dogs — which is mentioned but not mandated by the Animal Birth Control Rules — there can be no target established, no effective budget and resource planning, and therefore, no real ability to ensure complete coverage.
The same would hold good when it comes to carrying out the Court’s current orders, given that the last citywide survey conducted by the MCD was 16 years ago in 2009.
Moreover, as very pertinently pointed out in this commentary, “The dogs that get caught are usually more friendly and are the least wary of humans. The dogs that survive are likely to be more wary and fearful”, and hence, more aggressive.
3. Dearth of dog shelters and skilled manpower
The bench, in the course of the hearing, repeatedly emphasised on permanent housing of dogs in shelters. “We have noticed one very absurd and unreasonable rule: If you pick up a stray dog from one part, you sterilise the dog and put him back in the same place — that’s absolutely absurd and doesn’t make any sense at all. Why should that stray dog come back to the locality and for what?” asked one of the judges.
Incidentally, this absurdity is what Rule 7(3) of the ABC Rules mandate: “All the dogs caught will be tagged for identification purposes and to ensure that the dogs are released in the same area after sterilisation and vaccination.”
According to the new directions though, authorities must not only round up dogs and send them to shelters, but also ensure that they stay there after being sterilised and vaccinated. This must be seen in the context of the dearth of public infirmaries or state shelters across cities, as well as of skilled manpower to take care of abandoned dogs. The MCD itself has admitted that Delhi has no dedicated dog shelters and only 20 sterilisation centres.
In existing programmes, we have heard horror stories involving first-time catchers or handlers. There have been instances cited where surgeries conducted without proper anaesthesia, pain management and aseptic technique have led to the animals dying painful deaths.
To order immediate capture of lakhs of dogs and permanent rehabilitation in shelters, under current realities, is nothing short of a death sentence for the animals.
4. Ensuring welfare through humane solutions
Experts, such as conservation biologist Dr Abi T Vanak, refute the idea of territoriality and community dogs and strongly advocate for dog-free public spaces. But even they agree on the collective “moral obligation to ensure their welfare”.
Dr Vanak suggests pet registration and financial incentives for adoption from shelters/centres (as opposed to buying). He also accepts in principle the idea of individuals running large “dog sanctuaries” on private property, as long as it does not create a nuisance for others.
The Court, in its recent stance, however, appears opposed to any alternative other than moving street dogs to yet-to-be-set-up shelters. The court-appointed amicus curiae had recommended that the captured dogs be put up for adoption through animal welfare organisations, but this was summarily rejected by the bench.
5. Need for community involvement
Perhaps the starkest aspect of the recent order is the absolute and imperious exclusion of community and citizens from a civic issue that affects them the most. Even though community inclusion and cooperation have been known to provide effective solutions to the problem that the court seeks to solve.
During the hearing, when a senior advocate tried to intervene on behalf of People for Animals, Justice Pardiwala rejected the request and said it would not allow any intervention application in the matter, in the larger public interest. The Court also warned individuals and organisations against interference in this matter.
And yet from Bengaluru to Vadodara, we have seen several real-life examples where effective population control measures have been implemented with the support and engagement of citizen groups.
In Vadodara, NGO Humane Society and the Vadodara Municipal Corporation jointly launched an animal birth control programme in 2017. This took the percentage of street dogs sterilised to 86% of the total dog population from a starting estimate of 36%. This was achieved through census surveys, infrastructure overhaul, and a meticulous and effective community awareness and engagement initiative, as this article shows.
Bengaluru’s Canine Squads are comprised of community volunteers ensuring the safety and well being of both animals and humans in their neighbourhoods. They focus on neutering, vaccinating, rescue, adoption and care of the dogs within their jurisdiction. The squads have strong relationships with ABC NGOS, the municipal authorities, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services (AHVS) and the Karnataka Animal Welfare Board (KAWB). Their efforts have led to a more conscious desire among all to ensure sterilisation and awareness about anti-rabies vaccinations.
There are also case studies from Chennai, Jaipur, Goa, Nilgiris and other places (Jackman and Rowen 2007) where a significant drop in rabies has been achieved through effective Animal Birth Control and Anti Rabies Vaccination (ABC/ARV) programmes, writes Sindhoor Pangal, an independent ethology researcher studying the free-living dogs in India. She also mentions studies which have shown that ABC/ARV costs can drop dramatically, and outcomes can be strengthened, with help from the very caregivers who are considered to be problematic when it comes to street dog management and control.
Settling for smaller, or perhaps, bigger evils?
Let us, however, for the moment discount all the above concerns and observations. Let us, in deference to the top court, set aside any sentiment related to the matter. Even if we reject the notion of dogs as community animals, agree in principle that streets should be free of them, and believe that by some stroke of miracle, authorities in the NCT will set up safe and habitable shelters for the free living urban canine population in eight weeks’ time, will it necessarily remove the risks of conflict and zoonotic diseases?
Many experts beg to differ. Every species has evolved in response to certain triggers and has come to play a certain role in the food chain. One population may be replaced by another and there is little to suggest with any degree of certainty what risks the latter may bring. Would one, perhaps, prefer rats to dogs?
Strike at the core issues
In latest available reports, Chief Justice B R Gavai Wednesday has withdrawn the case from the earlier bench and posted it for rehearing before a three-judge special bench led by Justice Vikram Nath. One hopes that the hearing will take into account available case studies that show vaccination, sterilisation and community upkeep hold great promise in solving a vast majority of issues that street dogs create.
It is a fact that free-ranging dogs on streets can turn territorial and aggressive, but the solution to this is two-pronged:
(a) eradicate not the dogs that are living, but the factors that lead to their continuing population growth: Waste dumps on streets, illegal breeding, unregulated pet ownership, random feeding without greater responsibilities, and shoddy state implementation of ABC rules. Despite laws (Dog Breeding and Marketing (DBM) rules, 2017, and Pet Shop rules, 2018), we have seen how illegal backyard breeding in appalling conditions continues to thrive. These are the areas where strictest clamp down is called for.
(b) learn from the existing successes of multi-stakeholder initiatives in Indian cities, all of which have inevitably involved the community.
The reason that our cities have not been able to scale up or replicate these successful experiments widely enough lies not in the approach per se, but in the amount and utilisation of funds available to local authorities, the lack of efforts to inform, educate and empower citizens on responsible ownership and effective caregiving, and the rigour with which various governments have implemented existing programmes.
There are enough laws and directives in place that have been formulated after extensive consultations and ground research. The courts should question why those have not been implemented in letter and spirit. To reject all those and replace them with plans disconnected from reality — rounding up dogs from Indian streets and banishing them for good — is quixotic at best and inhumane at the worst.