From Street Chaos to Courtroom Debate
Over the past few months, the Supreme Court has been closely examining the issue of stray dogs, a matter that has stirred strong emotions across the country. Triggered by a spike in dog bite incidents and rising concerns over rabies, the debate escalated after a previous order mandated the removal of strays from Delhi-NCR streets. The move, while aimed at public safety, sparked an outcry from animal rights activists, NGOs, and celebrities, arguing it was both inhumane and impractical.
The Court’s Modified Order
On Friday, a three-judge bench led by Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria revised its earlier stance. The court directed that stray dogs must be vaccinated, dewormed, and then released back into their original localities. However, canines exhibiting aggressive behaviour or diagnosed with rabies will remain confined in shelters after immunisation.
Additionally, the court banned feeding of strays in public places, stressing that such practices often lead to conflict between residents. Instead, municipalities have been asked to earmark designated feeding zones within their wards. Violations of this directive will attract legal penalties.
Nationwide Scope and Policy Vision
What began as a Delhi-NCR matter has now been extended to the entire nation. The Supreme Court has consolidated stray dog–related cases from all High Courts under its purview and signalled its intent to frame a national policy. Petitioners, including animal lovers and NGOs, have been asked to contribute financially toward shelters, with individuals depositing ₹25,000 and organisations ₹2,00,000.
The Numbers Behind the Debate
Government records highlight the seriousness of the situation: more than 37 lakh dog bite cases and 54 suspected rabies-related deaths were documented in 2024 alone. Such statistics underscore the urgent need for a comprehensive policy that not only safeguards public health but also respects animal welfare.
Lessons from Abroad
Several countries have grappled with similar dilemmas. For instance, Romania once attempted mass culling of strays to reduce attacks, but the measure invited international condemnation and proved largely ineffective in controlling population growth. In contrast, Turkey adopted a vaccination–neuter–return strategy, supported by community feeding programs in controlled spaces. While challenges persist, Turkish cities like Istanbul have reported more stable stray populations without resorting to mass removal.
Thailand too experimented with sheltering initiatives, but overcrowding and lack of resources led to poor outcomes, forcing authorities to reconsider community-based solutions. These global experiences suggest that a balance of sterilisation, vaccination, and regulated coexistence may offer a more sustainable path than outright bans or removals.
A Way Forward
The Supreme Court’s revised ruling reflects an attempt to strike equilibrium between protecting citizens and upholding humane treatment of animals. By insisting on vaccination and regulated feeding, while preventing aggressive or rabid animals from re-entering communities, the court has taken a pragmatic step toward coexistence.
Toward Responsible Coexistence
Stray dog management is not merely a legal matter but a societal challenge that touches on public health, compassion, and civic responsibility. India’s path forward must combine vaccination drives, sterilisation programs, awareness campaigns, and designated feeding areas to reduce friction. With a forthcoming national policy, the hope is for a framework that addresses citizens’ safety concerns while preserving the dignity of street animals—a model of coexistence rather than conflict.
(With agency inputs)
