Abstract
The Capital of India – New Delhi, often recognized for its iconic towering monuments, amazing food culture and bustling markets is also home to a large population of stray dogs roaming the streets. These innocent creatures develop warm and friendly relationships with various residents of the city; whether exploring the markets or resting somewhere in an alleyway, they are seen as a source of joy by many whether it be dog lovers or just busy citizens in general who need a feeling of warmth in a city which might otherwise feel soulless and impersonal. Recently, the Supreme court issued quite a controversial directive asking the Government of Delhi and local bodies to capture the stray dogs and relocate them to dedicated shelters under eight weeks with no hope of release, attracting criticism and praise in equal measure. Through this article, I would like to analyze the ruling, present my views and suggest steps going forward.
The Ruling
On Monday, 11th August 2025, The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed that all stray-dogs within the Delhi-NCR region whether sterilized or non-sterilized be picked up within eight weeks and housed in dedicated shelters to be set up by the concerned authorities. The court stipulated that no stray dog once put in the shelter should be released under any circumstances with CCTV surveillance in all shelters monitoring the same. Additionally, the court stated that authorities must maintain a record of the strays captured and housed in pounds and any person or organization who comes in the way of this process shall face strict legal action. The courts motive behind this ruling was to curb the cases of dog bites and rabies which have been increasing exponentially in the last few years, with children and elderly at the receiving end. Dog bites can be dangerous for many reasons, even a small bite from the sharp teeth of the dog may result in tearing of the skin or injury to the muscles or nerves, even leading to bacterial infections if not monitored properly. The truly alarming aspect is rabies, a viral disease which attacks the brain and nervous system and is spread through the saliva of infected animals. Once a person begins showing signs and symptoms of the disease, it almost always causes death thus prompting the need for vaccination.
The issue with the ruling is not in the premise – preventing dog bites and rabies should indeed be a matter of national importance, the issue is with the implementation which threatens to cause significant unintended and disastrous consequences. Furthermore, the judgment contradicts many of the existing animal welfare laws such as the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 which place an emphasis on humane management no matter what the situation is. Humans have laws in place to decide an appropriate punishment for causing grievous harm, these voiceless creatures are devoid of the means of expressing their innocence, hence it is our duty to think of better and more sustainable solutions than what is currently proposed.
The Issue
While I empathize with every single victim of these situations, forcibly capturing millions of stray dogs in a vast city like Delhi will be too much of a logistical challenge especially within a short period of time. Former Union Minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi has rightly stated that the Delhi government would need to find up to 2,000 centers to accommodate the tens of thousands of community dogs, something very unlikely to be carried out successfully. The Animal Birth Control rules 2023 provide for the sterilization and vaccination of stray dogs, instead of stuffing them in poorly run shelters thus emphasizing a humane approach which has now supposedly been abandoned by the apex court. We may take a look at a city within India itself to get an idea of a more feasible solution. Jaipur through its Animal Birth Control and Immunization program which has been ongoing since 1994 has managed to significantly reduced dog bite incidents and rabies by vaccinating and sterilizing an average of 3000 dogs per year alongside vaccination of a further 5000 dogs per year. This demonstrates that long term-planning, sterilization and vaccination can decrease public health risks in a practical manner without resorting to large scale capturing and sheltering of dogs. Analyzing a place outside India namely Sri Lanka can be a good example for a way of doing things differently but being extremely effective. Sri Lanka faced 377 cases of rabies deaths in the mid-1970s, amongst the highest in the world. Due to this the country’s public health authorities implemented two-five-year rabies control programs in 1976-1985 while also introducing a no-kill policy among the dog population to protect animal welfare. Rabies cases in Sri Lanka have significantly reduced since then with the country only facing 8 deaths from this disease in 2018, a remarkable figure.
Besides this, the new policy also goes against various provisions set forth by the Supreme Court themselves and is in conflict with standards supported by credible organizations like the World Organization for Animal Health, which endorse the “Catch, Neuter, Vaccinate, Return” approach as a humane and effective method of managing free-roaming dog populations. In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (7 May 2014), the Supreme Court recognised the Five Freedoms for all animals, including freedom from pain, injury, disease, and distress — protections that would be difficult to uphold in overcrowded shelters. Most importantly the court upheld the right of animals to express normal patterns of behaviour, for stray dogs, this means living in familiar territory with their social groups, a right they would lose forever if permanently confined. Moreover, relocating these dogs will also result in the “vacuum effect” where new unvaccinated dogs quickly move in and start residing in the territory.
Alternative Solutions
I believe that instead of pursuing a policy of mass capture and confinement, Delhi will benefit from adopting a more humane long-term program that is in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 and takes inspiration from proven international as well as national success stories. More public awareness and campaigns on responsible ownership should be started to educate communities on co-existing with dogs while ensuring the due safety of children and elderly. After sterilization, dogs should be released back in their old territory and be monitored regularly by a dedicated control board, with priority being given to localities having more frequent incidents of dog bites. Targeted sheltering may be put in place as well to detain only those aggressive animals who present a genuine threat to the safety of humans. Moreover, it should be ensured that these animal welfare shelters are maintained properly as in accordance with the principles outlined by the Supreme Court in the A.Nagaraja Judgement.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s goal of protecting citizens, particularly children and the elderly, from rabies and dog bites is urgent and legitimate. However, the proposal for a rapid, mass capture and permanent relocation of stray dogs to shelters is neither sustainable for society nor humane for these creatures, who share our streets and survive with little but the occasional affection, food, or water from a passerby. While incidents of dog bites and rabies are real and concerning, they persist largely because we have failed to implement large-scale sterilisation drives or ensure the kind of public safety awareness that many other countries have adopted- measures that have made drastic interventions unnecessary elsewhere.
I can only hope, as I write this, that an alternative solution will be crafted - one that keeps constitutional safeguards in mind while addressing the problem in a manner acceptable to all stakeholders. While there are obviously disagreements on the new directive, at the end of the day we all seek the same thing: peaceful co-existence between humans and dogs as any course of action contrary to the same will amount to an act of aggressive and brutal control, not compassionate governance.