India’s humane animal control model faces its toughest legal test yet
Abhijit Roy
The Supreme Court order to remove stray dogs from public institutions is totally “illogical” because it conflicts with existing Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules that advocate a “sterilize-vaccinate-return” approach. The order is also impractical and inhumane due to the immense logistical challenges and costs of building enough shelters and the negative ecological consequences of a “vacuum effect” that could increase rabies risks.
The order to permanently relocate dogs to shelters directly contravenes the ABC Rules, 2023, which mandate that sterilized and vaccinated dogs be returned to their original localities. The current November 2025 order has created confusion by superseding a previous August 2025 three-judge bench modification that reinstated the ABC rules, allowing the release of sterilised dogs (except rabid/aggressive ones) back to their localities. The previous Supreme Court bench that issued the initial blanket removal order had explicitly dismissed these rules, leading to legal conflict and a re-examination by a larger bench. The “sterilize-vaccinate-return” (Catch-Neuter-Release, or CNR) approach is endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is considered the most humane and effective method for long-term population control and rabies eradication. Mass sheltering is logistically impossible given India’s large stray dog population (estimated at 8-10 lakh in Delhi-NCR alone). The cost of building and maintaining thousands of adequate shelters with proper veterinary care, food, and staff would be staggering, potentially running into thousands of crores of rupees, a sum unbudgeted by most municipalities.Concerns are raised about potential overcrowding and the spread of diseases in makeshift shelters, which is considered inhumane and violates the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Though the Supreme Court stray dogs directive reflects concerns about public safety. However, implementing the order without addressing decade long infrastructure neglect risks transforming a well intentioned judicial intervention into a source of animal suffering, the outcome the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and constitutional principles of compassion seek to prevent. The suo motu case on Delhi stray dogs has highlighted gaps in Animal Birth Control implementation and rabies control efforts. The question is no longer whether we should implement humane stray dog management. It is whether we can fund it adequately. Until that gap is addressed, court orders may remain unfulfilled despite being grounded in compassion.
(Author is a Jamshedpur based columnist. Views expressed are personal.)
