The Supreme Court of India’s order of August 11, 2025, to round up and incarcerate all street dogs in New Delhi in shelters was not just a misguided attempt to solve a problem. It was a scientifically unsound, legally questionable and morally bankrupt decree that served as a convenient smokescreen for the capital’s real and pressing crises. While this misguided directive was stayed by the Court on August 22, 2025, its initial pronouncement revealed a dangerous willingness to ignore both scientific evidence and constitutional compassion. Since the final hearing on the matter is still pending, it is imperative for the citizenry in India to weigh their options. The initial order was one that sentenced lakhs of sentient beings to a life of misery and eventual death, while ignoring proven and humane solutions that lie unimplemented due to sheer institutional apathy.
A blueprint for disaster
The directive, which was hailed by some as a solution to the “stray dog menace,” was, in reality, a blueprint for a public health catastrophe. The very idea that mass shelters can work in a country such as India is a dangerous fantasy. It has been a catastrophic failure even in developed nations. In the United States, the historical “pound” system, as documented by sociologists such as Leslie Irvine, evolved into a grim cycle of capture and kill. Overcrowded shelters become high-stress environments, leading to extreme psychological distress, aggression, and rampant disease transmission. A 1999 study by David Tuber on dogs in animal shelters highlighted the severe behavioural problems that arise from confinement, noting that long-term sheltering is detrimental to their welfare.
Let us imagine lakhs of Delhi’s free-roaming, territorial dogs, suddenly captured and thrown together. The result would be brutal dogfights, injuries and mass casualties. These shelters, costing thousands of crores to build and maintain, would inevitably become epicentres for zoonotic diseases such as rabies and leptospirosis, posing a grave risk not just to the animals but also to the poorly-paid and unprotected staff employed to manage them. Should a disease outbreak occur, the disposal of thousands of carcasses would create an environmental and public health hazard of unimaginable proportions.
Furthermore, the Court’s order defied basic ecological science. The mass removal of dogs would create a “vacuum”, a phenomenon well-documented in studies of animal population control. Nature abhors a vacuum. Dogs from neighbouring States such as Haryana and Uttar Pradesh would simply migrate into Delhi to fill the newly available ecological niche, drawn by the same food sources. Would the Delhi government have built a great wall around the city to keep them out? Or would it have employed security guards to patrol the borders? The idea is as ludicrous as it is impractical.
The removal of dogs, which are efficient scavengers, would have also likely led to an explosion in the population of rodents and monkeys, bringing with them a different set of public health problems. This approach is in direct contradiction to the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and India’s own National Action Plan for Dog Mediated Rabies Elimination (NAPRE), both of which advocate mass sterilisation and vaccination as the only scientific method for rabies control and population management.
A pernicious narrative is being spun that this is a conflict between the “dog-loving elite” and the poor, who bear the brunt of dog bites. This is a deliberate and cruel misrepresentation. As research by scholars such as Yamini Narayanan has shown, street dogs are an integral part of the urban ecosystem, living in a symbiotic relationship with the city’s inhabitants, especially its most marginalised. For Delhi’s vast homeless population, abandoned by the state and invisible to the society, a street dog is often their only companion, a source of comfort, and a guardian in the lonely, dangerous nights living on the pavement. To rip these animals away is to inflict another layer of cruelty on people who have already been failed by the system.
Let us be clear. The street dog issue is a carefully orchestrated diversion. It is a smokescreen to hide the spectacular failures of governance in Delhi. While the city’s attention is diverted to the canines, pressing issues are swept under the carpet — these include : allegations of institutional voter theft by the Opposition, crumbling infrastructure, roads that turn into rivers every monsoon, rampant corruption, and crippling inflation. The top court should have been pulling up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for its abysmal failure to execute its statutory duty.
‘ABC’ is the solution
The real solution has been available for decades: the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme. The success of this programme in cities such as Jaipur is a testament to its efficacy. A study in 2010 on Jodhpur’s dog population following an ABC programme showed a significant and stable decline in numbers and a high rate of vaccination coverage. Yet, the MCD’s implementation has been a sham. Data from the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) over the years reveal a story of insufficient budgets, unmet sterilisation targets, and a complete lack of accountability. The problem is not the dogs. It is the dereliction of duty by the MCD.
This brings us to the profound legal flaws in the Supreme Court’s initial order. The judgment, delivered by a Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, stands in stark and bewildering contradiction to a more reasoned order delivered in 2024, by a Bench headed by Justice J.K. Maheshwari. The Maheshwari judgment upheld the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which are rooted in science and compassion. It affirmed that an indiscriminate killing of dogs is not the solution. The modified order of August 22, 2025, has resolved this glaring conflict, rightly shifting the national focus towards establishing uniform protocols for humane and scientific canine management.
Furthermore, the right to challenge this order, the locus standi, is rooted in our constitutional and cultural fabric. Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to have compassion for living creatures. This is not a mere suggestion. It is a cornerstone of the republic’s moral and legal framework. Cruelty to animals, sanctioned by the state, is an affront to this duty and to our collective humanity.
Adopt an evidence-based approach
No one denies that the issue of dog bites must be addressed. But the solution cannot be a “final solution” of mass incarceration. A targeted, evidence-based approach is needed. If there is clear evidence of an unprovoked attack by a specific dog, that animal should be humanely captured and observed by professionals. This is a far cry from the indiscriminate round-up ordered by the Court.
The Supreme Court’s initial order was a monumental error. It was a victory for hysteria over science, for convenience over compassion, and for political distraction over genuine governance. There should be no diversion from the real problems that plague the capital. And the MCD must be held accountable for its decades of failure. The path to a safer, more humane city lies not in building dog prisons but in implementing the proven, scientific, and compassionate solution of sterilisation and vaccination.
Vivek Mukherjee is an Assistant Professor of Law at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) Hyderabad and Faculty Coordinator of the Animal Law Centre
Published – August 23, 2025 12:16 am IST