New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday directed civic bodies to remove all stray dogs from the streets in Delhi-NCR within eight weeks, thereafter, housing them in dog shelters in the Capital, but activists say the order violates the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2013, and risks public health setbacks.
The move marks a sharp departure from India’s two-decade-old policy for stray dog management. For years, courts have attempted to tackle the issue, and every time, they have chosen to balance animal welfare with public safety. Most court-led solutions, however, have faltered in practice due to the inefficiency of civic agencies, say activists.
Fixing an eight-week deadline to remove stray dogs from streets, the SC has warned of strict action against anyone obstructing the drive. The apex court’s order is in the public interest and comes in the backdrop of rabies and dog bite cases, which are on the rise.
Under the ABC Rules, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, municipal bodies are to conduct extensive sterilisation and immunisation of stray dogs, without any animal cruelty involved, as well as follow up and monitor the process. Under the rules, sterilised and vaccinated stray dogs have to be released in their original locations and cannot be permanently relocated.
Permanent removal is allowed only for rabid or aggressive dogs, and even then, civic bodies must follow set procedures. Two high courts, in Bombay and Kerala, have upheld the 2023 ABC Rules.
Its ultimate objective is to bring the stray dog population under control and implement an anti-rabies programme, with the corporation helming the cause.
Also Read: Locked & chained inside car, pet dog dies as owners roam Taj Mahal
Past court efforts & why they failed
In 2009, the Supreme Court stopped the culling of street dogs, ruling that sterilisation and vaccination under the ABC programme are the only legal methods to control their population. However, implementation has been weak and riddled with shortcomings.
High courts in Kerala, Bombay, Karnataka, and Delhi have repeatedly directed authorities to speed up sterilisation, establish shelters, and submit progress reports. Yet, little has changed on the ground. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the ABC rules framed under it forbid the killing of healthy and non-rabies dogs.
On Monday, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, hearing a case on rabies deaths, said, “This should be the first and foremost exercise—to make all localities free of stray dogs. There should not be any compromise in undertaking any exercise.”
When told that the ABC rules mandated the release of sterilised dogs, the court asked those present in the court to “forget the rules for the time being”.
Justice Pardiwala stressed, “We are not doing this for us; it is for the public interest. So, no sentiments of any nature should be involved. Action should be taken at the earliest.”
This stand of SC, however, contradicts its October 2022 order, which was pronounced by a bench led by then Justice Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) and Justice J.K. Maheshwari. “Street dogs cannot be held in captivity,” it said. “Certainly, adoption and keeping stray dogs in captivity is not acceptable,” the bench, at the time, observed and stayed the Nagpur bench order of the Bombay High Court, requiring those interested in feeding stray dogs to adopt them, bring them home, register them with civic authorities, or put them in dog shelters.
The SC directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to identify locations for feeding stray dogs and also warned the general public against causing any public nuisance through their dog-feeding drives.
Later, in July 2024, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol emphasised the ABC rules, while rejecting a public interest litigation (PIL) regarding hazards caused by stray dogs. The PIL highlighted the increasing menace of street dogs, seeking court permission for the municipal authorities to deal with such issues.
Refusing to entertain the PIL, the bench, at the time, observed that there must be a balance between animals’ rights and public protection or safety. The courts have now diminished the relevance of the ABC Rules, as pointed out in response to previous such petitions.
A careful consideration of the ABC Rules would resolve many problems, the bench noted. Finally, the court held that citizens approach their respective state high courts, and based on the ABC Rules, they must resolve the stray dog menace in that state.
In contrast, the Supreme Court’s Monday order directs the civic bodies in Delhi-NCR to remove all stray dogs from public spaces, house them in shelters, and stop adoptions, asking authorities to make a move that directly conflicts with the ABC framework, animal rights activists argue.
The court passed the order despite vocal protests from the counsel appearing for an animal rights body. However, the court advised the counsel not to argue further.
The Delhi HC is currently hearing three petitions in connection with the stray dog menace in the Capital. In one of the petitions, animal rights bodies are seeking contempt proceedings against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Activists are apprehensive that SC’s fresh order may preempt the HCs from proceeding against the corporation for not performing the mandate under the ABC Rules.
‘Order violates ABC rules’
Describing the order as shocking and one contrary to global public health guidance, animal protection experts warn that the order could lead to unnecessary suffering in dog shelters.
Calling it “shocking” and “an off-handed approach,” Gauri Mulekhi, a trustee of People for Animals, India’s largest animal welfare organisation, told ThePrint, “This seems very uncharacteristic of an apex court of justice of a country with compassion in its DNA.”
Mulekhi pointed out that the court, unprecedentedly, cited a dialogue from the Hollywood movie, The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: “When you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk”.
She also highlighted that the court disregarded a fact placed on record—not a single human death is connected with rabies in Delhi, Mulekhi said. She, urging people to unite to care for street animals, noted that lakhs of lives could be affected due to the SC order.
FIAPO or Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, in a public statement, opposed the SC’s Monday order, citing “public health risks and legal violations”.
Discussing the new order and how it is against the ABC Rules, FIAPO said that the rules “fully aligned with WHO recommendations”, with sterilised and vaccinated community dogs mandatorily returned to their original territories after treatment.
Forced removal directly contravenes these provisions and disregards proven in-situ management models that brought rabies cases down to near-zero in cities, it added.
Condemning loss of even one life to rabies, the protesters have called for “mass vaccination, sterilisation, and waste management instead of mass removal, a science-backed approach that protects both people and animals”.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)