By Binny Yadav
Days after a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan of the Supreme Court directed the Delhi government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) on August 11 to “immediately remove stray dogs from all localities” in the capital, the order was modified by a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria on August 22. The Court, on August 11 citing the “menace of dog bites leading to rabies,” had issued a five-point order mandating the creation of dog shelters within eight weeks, warning that any individual or organisation obstructing the process would face action.
The three-judge bench said in its order that dogs shall be released from dog shelters and returned to the area from where they were picked up after sterilisation, vaccination and deworming, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. The bench, however, clarified that dogs with “aggressive behaviour or rabies shall not be released into public spaces from dog shelters”. The Court also said that feeding on streets is not permitted and directed the municipal authorities to notify designated public spaces for dog feeding. According to the modified order, action will be taken against those found feeding in on the streets. The Court also directed that no adopted dogs to be returned to the street.
THE GROWING MENACE ON THE STREETS
The trigger for the Court’s intervention lies in an undeniable surge of public distress. Delhi and its adjoining NCR towns have seen a sharp escalation in stray dog attacks in recent years:
• In Ghaziabad, a 14-year-old boy died in 2022 after being mauled by stray dogs near his housing colony, sparking widespread protests by residents.
• In Noida, repeated attacks in gated housing societies led RWAs to file urgent petitions demanding municipal action, after several children were bitten in parks and common areas.
• In East Delhi, a 12-year-old school boy succumbed to rabies in 2023 after being bitten by a stray and not receiving timely medical intervention.
• Hospitals in Delhi, including AIIMS and LNJP, report over 100 dog bite cases daily during peak months. In 2023 alone, the capital recorded over 30,000 cases of dog bites, according to the Municipal Health Department.
Parents, RWAs, and even school administrations have raised alarms about the vulnerability of children and the elderly. Petitions before the courts repeatedly stress that residents live in “constant fear,” particularly in urban villages, resettlement colonies, and outer Delhi where strays move in packs.
This mounting public pressure had created the backdrop against which the Supreme Court’s earlier order came—a response to years of governance failure in controlling the menace.
LOGISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES
Despite the urgency, the August 11 directive had run into enormous practical hurdles:
• Numbers vs Infrastructure: With an estimated four to six lakh stray dogs, Delhi lacks shelter capacity to house even a fraction. Existing facilities are overcrowded, and building new ones in eight weeks is unrealistic.
• Funding Gap: Sterilisation budgets are already thin; large-scale capture and warehousing would require massive new allocations.
• Operational Feasibility: The MCD and NDMC do not have the trained manpower, vehicles, or veterinary staff for a city-wide roundup.
• Public Health Paradox: Removing dogs abruptly can create ecological vacuums, inviting migration of new, unvaccinated strays and increasing risks rather than reducing them.
For these reasons, animal welfare groups and municipal insiders alike had described the order as an “administrative impossibility”.
LEGAL CONTRADICTIONS IN AUGUST 11 ORDER
The order faced challenges on the legal plane:
- The ABC Rules: The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (amended 2023), framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, mandate sterilisation, vaccination, and release of strays back into their localities. Removal or killing is prohibited except for rabid or incurably ill animals.
- Judicial Precedents: Animal Welfare Board of India vs A Nagaraja (2014) extended Article 21 protections to animals. In 2015 and 2022, the Court reaffirmed the ABC model as the only lawful method of population control, emphasising coexistence.
3. Departure on August 11: The directive to “immediately remove” strays contradicted both statutory rules and past judgments. Further, its warning against “any resistance” had raised concerns over curbing lawful dissent and NGO oversight.
WHY AUGUST 11 ORDER WAS SEEN AS A U-TURN
For nearly two decades, the Supreme Court upheld the humane, statutory ABC framework. However, the August 11 order departed dramatically, appearing to prioritise immediate removal over coexistence. Critics had called this a judicial U-turn driven more by public pressure than by consistent application of law.
GOVERNANCE FAILURES AT THE CORE
What the entire case ultimately exposes is chronic governance failure:
• Low sterilisation coverage despite two decades of the ABC programme.
• Inefficient municipal coordination between MCD, NDMC, and state authorities.
• Persistent waste mismanagement, which sustains dog populations.
• Weak rabies control programmes, with inadequate vaccination and awareness campaigns.
Without fixing these systemic gaps, critics warn, judicial directives—whether for removal or sterilisation—risk being symbolic rather than effective.
A JUDICIAL CROSSROADS
The Supreme Court’s August 11 directive reflected genuine alarm at rising dog bite incidents and rabies deaths in Delhi-NCR. Yet, in attempting to provide an immediate remedy, it raised profound concerns of legality, feasibility, and consistency with the Court’s own jurisprudence.
The three-judge had earlier reserved its order on challenges, leaving the issue unsettled. The Court stood at a crossroads: whether to reaffirm the ABC model and compel better governance, or to pursue an unprecedented removal policy with uncertain consequences.
Either way, the fate of Delhi’s stray dogs—and the credibility of the judiciary in balancing public safety, animal rights, and statutory law—hangs in the balance.
The latest order comes as a much relief for those who stood up for animal rights. However, it is important to see how the apex court, as it has promised, evolves a policy framework for creating a semblance between the rights of the dogs on the streets and those humans who are prone to stray dog attacks.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator