Caught between fear and compassion: The Indian Supreme Court’s stray dog dilemma

By Sumit Kumar Singh

On July 28, 2025, the Times of India shared a disturbing headline: “City hounded by strays, kids pay price.” That single report highlighting stray dog attacks on children playing in the street triggered an extraordinary judicial intervention. Taking suo motu cognisance, the Supreme Court quickly elevated the news item into a matter of constitutional significance. Within weeks, two sharply contrasting orders emerged: the first, on August 11, which directed the permanent confinement of stray dogs in Delhi- National Capital Region (NCR); and the second, on August 22, which corrected course, reinstating the capture–neuter–vaccinate–release (CNVR) model, and broadening the issue to a pan-India scale. The 11 days separating these two orders revealed not only the tension between public safety and animal welfare but also the fragility of India’s statutory framework on stray dog management.

He statutory framework: A balancing act

India’s legal framework on animal rights is primarily encapsulated within the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act). It represents a radical departure from centuries-old colonial culling practices and, for the first time in Indian law, explicitly recognised animals as sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering, and therefore entitled to protection.

Public resistance to culling is not unprecedented. In 1832, the city of Bombay was rocked by strikes and protests against municipal dog culling laws, one of the first records of resistance to lethal controls. Despite such opposition, colonial authorities formalised the policy of culling: dogs were poisoned, shot in the streets by police, or clubbed to death. The cities of Madras and Bangalore even established “lethal chambers” throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. Though controversial, these provisions became an integral aspect of colonial urban governance.

By the 1920s, dogs continued to be framed as a public nuisance and reinforced perspectives that rationalised extermination. Municipalities throughout India mostly continued the colonial practice of poisoning and shooting dogs after gaining independence in 1947. This persisted for decades before animal rights campaigners started to promote the move towards more humane options.

The decisive shift came in 2001, when Indian law outlawed killing as a means of dog control, replaced the term “stray dogs” with “street dogs”, and introduced the Animal Birth Control (ABC) program focused on sterilisation and vaccination. The PCA Act further strengthened protections: Section 3 of the Act establishes a general duty of care to prevent cruelty, while Section 11 makes certain forms of mistreatment criminal offences.

At the same time, the Act recognises that the State may regulate stray populations in the interest of public health and safety, but not in a manner that constitutes cruelty. Further, within this ambit, the government framed the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, which were subsequently modified to become the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (ABC Rules). These rules perfectly encapsulate the CNVR approach: stray dogs shall be captured, sterilised, vaccinated and released into the same locality. Importantly, the 2023 Rules reinforced judicial precedents such as Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (2015), where the Supreme Court prohibited the arbitrary killing of stray dogs.

Against this backdrop, when the two-judge bench on August 11 ordered permanent confinement of all dogs, it was not merely a policy shift but a direct assault on the statutory scheme itself.

See Also: North Korea's Kim likely to use bulletproof special train for his upcoming trip to China

Stray dog management in India

For decades, Indian municipalities relied on poisoning and shooting dogs to temporarily control numbers, while drawing international criticism for their cruelty and inefficacy.

By the 1980s and 1990s, growing animal welfare activism and global shifts in veterinary science had made it clear that culling was neither sustainable nor humane. The decisive policy shift came with the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 which made the the capture–neuter–vaccinate–release (CNVR) model the only lawful approach.

In theory, CNVR operates on a self-limiting ecological principle: sterilised and vaccinated dogs, once returned to their territories, stabilise population growth and deter the entry of unsterilised newcomers. In practice, however, implementation has faltered. Sterilisation coverage rarely exceeds 30–40 percent in most cities, far below the 70 percent coverage needed to effectively control populations. Municipal capacity in Delhi and Gurgaon has been weak, hampered by too few veterinarians, inadequate shelters, and erratic vaccination drives.

Despite these shortcomings, the judiciary has consistently upheld the CNVR framework, striking down attempts at mass culling by municipalities in response to public pressure. The updated ABC Rules 2023 attempted to correct some of these deficiencies by strengthening municipal accountability, permitting confinement only in narrowly defined cases, and linking sterilisation programmes to public health obligations.

The 11-day fiasco

Against this legal and historical backdrop, the August 11 order struck like a thunderclap. By mandating the permanent warehousing of all stray dogs, the Court bypassed the statutory framework and resurrected a long-discredited model of containment.

The two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan framed the issue as a stark constitutional conflict: Does the right to life under Article 21 override the State’s duty of animal welfare? In their anxiety to protect citizens, particularly children, they answered decisively: yes. The Court directed that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be permanently confined to shelters, prohibited their release even after sterilisation, and threatened contempt proceedings against anyone who obstructed dog-catching operations.

See Also: Managing Dog Teething: Tips for Relieving Your Puppy’s Discomfort

Municipal authorities scrambled to construct shelters for 5,000 dogs within weeks, while NGOs who resisted risked contempt charges. The order not only contradicted Rule 11 of the ABC Rules but also ignored the ecological rationale of CNVR: under which sterilised dogs in familiar territories deter the entry of new, unsterilised packs. During those eleven days, Delhi’s animal management regime descended into uncertainty, a humanitarian, administrative, and legal muddle authored by the Court itself.

The August 22 course correction

The three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria stepped in to quell a crisis of the Court’s own making. In its August 22 order, the bench stayed the August 11 directions and reinstated the CNVR model, while carving out humane exceptions: rabid, aggressive, or dangerously ill dogs could be confined, but the rest must be sterilised, vaccinated, and released.

At the same time, the Court introduced three innovations. First, it regulated public feeding by restricting it to designated zones, seeking to balance compassion with hygiene. Second, it created an adoption pathway, allowing individuals and NGOs to remove dogs from the streets responsibly. Third, it shifted some financial responsibility onto petitioners and NGOs, requiring deposits to support infrastructure. By expanding the case to all States and Union Territories, the Court signalled its intent to craft a national policy on stray dog management — something India has long lacked.

Moving towards a humane national policy

The contrasting orders of August 11 and 22 illustrate the perils of quick-fix populism and the importance of judicial restraint. Stray dog management cannot be solved by diktat; it requires statutory fidelity, scientific grounding, and sustained municipal investment. The Supreme Court’s final word in this matter will likely shape the trajectory of India’s animal welfare law for decades. If implemented faithfully, CNVR can work, but only if sterilisation coverage is scaled up, shelters are made functional rather than punitive, and feeding practices are regulated with compassion.

The August 11 order will be remembered as a judicial misstep born of urgency; the August 22 order, as a corrective moment that pulled India back onto the path of humane, science-based governance. The challenge now is to ensure that the Court’s ambition to craft a national framework does not remain trapped in paper orders but translates into real-world reform, one that safeguards children in playgrounds, while also honouring the lives of the dogs who share our streets.

(GlobalVoices/NS)

This article is republished from GlobalVoices under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Also Read: