Is the Supreme Court correct in its orders for the immediate removal of all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR streets and mandatory shelter confinement?
On 11 August 2025, the Supreme Court of India ordered an immediate roundup of stray dogs from streets and localities. It ordered the Delhi government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the New Delhi Municipal Corporation, and the authorities of Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram, and Faridabad to start collecting strays from all localities. It ordered them to create dog shelters/pounds within 8 weeks to house 5,000+ dogs initially, permanently confine captured dogs - explicitly prohibiting their release back to streets, establish 4-hour response helplines for dog bite complaints and maintain detailed records of all captured and sheltered dogs.
I read the 18-page Supreme Court order, and here’s what I feel. I choose to voice my opinion only after sourcing the order, taking a printout, and carefully reviewing it to note the finer details. But before that, some disclaimers:
✅My mother and I are both animal lovers. We love dogs, cats, birds, and all sorts of animals. We do not have a pet because we live in a 1 BHK and lack the time and resources to care for one.
✅I have occasionally fed stray dogs and cats. Occasionally, I have also bought special dog biscuits for stray dogs.
✅I have been bitten by dogs about 3 times when I was a kid and nearly bitten twice in my adult life. Of the three times that I was bitten by a dog in my childhood, twice was by the same dog of my neighbour’s and once by a stray dog in my Parsi colony. Of the two close shaves, once I got saved only because my temple’s pet dog, albeit a bit crackpot, had a nozzle on. He took a jab at me in one of his many moments. Had it not been a nozzle (thank God for that!), I would surely have been bitten. The other close shave was a particularly terrifying 4–5-year period I spent in my colony, my own home, when another stray dog, fed and pampered by some of my colony residents, used to target some residents repeatedly who it didn’t like (I was one of them, for no apparent reason).
The ruling
After reading the court order, it became apparent to me that there was some misinformation regarding the tone and intentions of the order. Let me clarify on a few aspects, based on my reading and understanding of the SC order:
✅The SC has taken cognizance of the increasing number of dog bite cases in Delhi as well as in India. The order gives statistics (see image), and it’s an uncomfortable truth. In 2024, Delhi reported 25,210 dog bite cases, up from 6,691 in 2022. India reported 37.15 lakh dog bite cases, up from 21.89 lakh cases in 2022. This is what so-called animal rights activists and critics of the SC order don’t want you to know.
✅The order makes it a point to distinguish between sterilisation and dog bites. The primary nuisance being sought to be pointed out is the dog bite cases, which tend to be very painful and stressful and which could also result in injuries, rabies, and in some cases deaths. “There is absolutely no material to suggest that the sterilization would eliminate the chance of the fog biting”, says the order (Page 4).
✅Critics of the order point out that it is suo-motu, as if to make it sound less significant, because it didn’t arise due to an individual or a group of individuals filing a case. This is an illogical argument. The SC order (Page 7) says that it was only after “deepest of deliberations…after systematic failure of the concerned authorities over the past two decades to address an issue that strikes at the heart of public safety, that we have decided to take matters into our hands.” The SC order says it “heard voices of those who have been directly affected and reflected upon a disturbing pattern of dog bites in this country.”
✅Contrary to critics of this order, the SC also takes care of stray dogs. It clearly instructs the civic authorities (Page 12-13) to ensure that there is no overcrowding at dog shelters, that dogs shall not be starved, and that they are adequately and regularly fed. The stray dogs should not be left unmonitored at all (presumably to ensure that harmony exists). It also directs the civic authorities to ensure that timely medical care is provided to all strays and the vulnerable and weak (as specifically mentioned) are accommodated separately within the shelter.
✅It also urges animal lovers to come forward and adopt stray dogs from these shelters (Point 8; page 9). Alternatively, or (better still) additionally, it also encourages people to come forward and participate in the dog shelter exercise, providing responsible care and upkeep for stray dogs at the shelter (Point 10, page 10).
✅In doing so, this also puts to rest the accusation that the order doesn’t prioritise the welfare of the strays, as some critics were quick to allege without even reading the order. By binding the civic authorities to take care of the strays, it has not left out any segment, yet at the same time, it has maintained its sharp focus on reducing instances of dog bites.
✅It also clarifies that there is an attempt to divide people between ‘animal lovers’ and persons indifferent towards animals. “We condemn those who, beneath the cloak of ‘love and care’ for the voiceless, pursue the warmth of self-congratulation,” says the SC order (Page 9)
✅Want more proof that SC cares for the strays? The SC encourages adoption, which the so-called animal lovers of Instagram have conveniently ignored. The order states that it allows civic authorities to formulate an adoption policy (point VI; page 13) for strays from shelters. However, it also cleverly notes that the policy should be designed in a way that it doesn’t defeat the purpose of this SC order. “At the cost of repetition, we make it clear that no such adoption, if any, should result in the re-release of a stray dog back on the streets. If we find a single infraction of such kind, we will proceed to take the strictest of action against the official responsible as well as the individual,” says the SC order.
✅The order also clearly states that no stray animals picked up by civic authorities should be returned to the streets. In this regard, proper identification or earmarking of the dog should be done for future identification purposes. This aligns with international standards and lends some semblance to a system that is sought to be established, rather than a mere tick-the-box approach.
The SC order has also instructed the setting up of a helpline to report dog bite cases. This is very thoughtful.
My thoughts
✅The SC order was much needed. Dog bite cases are a genuine concern, and the numbers indicate a disturbing increase. Numbers don’t lie.
✅The excuse that SC’s target of setting up dog shelters, rounding up of dogs, and the associated logistics are complicated to arrange at such “short notice” is no excuse for humans to suffer from dog bites that can be lethal. Note that by declining to entertain any intervention applications until they first hear from civic authorities regarding their response, the SC has, in my opinion, given civic authorities a chance to first formulate a plan for implementation at the very least. Before attempting to implement the plan, critics are not justified in opposing the SC order.
✅This ought to have been done 20 years ago, like in most foreign countries. It is the collective failure of the governments and civic bodies to allow the proliferation of stray dogs. The so-called animal lovers who feed strays haven’t helped either. They ought to have pushed the civic authorities. But like many things in India, the highly vocal minority (stray dog feeders and proliferators) have let things pass and looked the other way. Where was the outrage when numerous videos of vicious dog attacks (that attack on the old woman by a pack of strays, where she is dragged away, still haunts me) came up?
✅If they didn’t push the civic authorities so far, then too bad; the SC has now stepped in, and rightly so.
✅Note that the reason behind the SC order is the increasing number of dog bite cases, not so much as it is about the very presence of stray dogs. Dog bite instances primarily occur when there is a pack of dogs; hence, the increasing number of strays has become a significant concern that must be addressed at the earliest opportunity. Of course, an occasional mad dog can also be lethal, as I have observed myself.
✅In my experience observing animals, I have found that stray dogs can form attachments to some individuals and dislike others. For years, I was tormented by a stray dog in my colony, mainly when I used to return from work late at night. The dog bite and dog terror are real, even for animal lovers like me, who can get on the wrong side of them at times.
✅Those who love strays often conveniently feed them, throw food on the streets, and dirty up the city, attracting more stray dogs. These dogs then form packs, procreate, and become increasingly a nuisance and often a danger to vulnerable humans. However, these so-called animal lovers don’t want to adopt them because it would become a full-time responsibility. How convenient.
✅Civic sense in India is a mess. Horrible traffic sense, lane mismanagement, piled-up garbage on streets, and breaking of traffic rules are not the only ways in which civic sense has deteriorated. The proliferation of wild animals on Indian roads, some of which attack humans in isolated streets with no one to help, even causing deaths, has also contributed to the deteriorating civic sense. If the local authorities, governments and, in this case, the so-called stray supporters didn’t intervene all these years, then it is high time the courts should. The SC has made a start. Can the Bombay HC now follow suit, please? I have a few stray dogs to report myself.
✅Some Parsis have compared this SC order to the Bombay Dog riots that happened in 1832 when Parsis violently protested against the British administration’s decision to round up stray dogs to control their rising population. They say that it is ironic that in 1832, Parsis protested, and now another Parsi (Justice J.B. Pardiwala) was one of the two judges who gave this August 11 SC order. This is the most idiotic comparison. Note: At the time, the British administration was considering culling the dogs. After the riots, the administration negotiated to relocate the dogs outside the city, according to Google records. The recent SC order, as I’ve demonstrated above, shows that it cares for the dogs, provides for setting up shelters, taking care of strays, feeding them, and even nudges citizens to adopt and care for them. Again: READ THE ORDER.
✅The stray lovers protesting against the SC order are free to come together to adopt stray dogs. They are even welcome to assist in forming and maintaining the shelters.
No comments:
Post a Comment