The Stray Dog Debate: Safety, Law, and What Really Works

This article is in collaboration with IDA Indievets

A recent Supreme Court directive has stirred a nationwide debate: all stray dogs in Delhi are to be removed from public spaces and shifted to shelters within the next six months. While the intention—addressing public safety and reducing human-animal conflict—is understandable, the ruling has raised significant concerns among veterinarians, animal welfare experts, and urban planners.

Below, we break down what the ruling entails, why implementing it isn’t straightforward, and what a more sustainable approach could look like.

The Ruling in Brief

On August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a directive to authorities in Delhi and the wider NCR region, ordering the removal of all stray dogs from public areas and relocating them to newly established shelters.

The ruling requires:

• Capturing and housing stray dogs in shelters within eight weeks
• Ensuring each dog is sterilised, dewormed, immunised, and not released back
• Establishing shelters with staff, CCTV monitoring, and veterinary care
• Setting up an animal helpline for dog bite reports
• Penal action against individuals who attempt to obstruct authorities or try to adopt the dogs.

The court stated this decision was driven by a “very disturbing and alarming” increase in dog bites and rabies cases, particularly affecting children.

Why This Is Not Feasible 

1. Infrastructure Gaps and High Costs

Delhi has an estimated 8-10 lakh stray dogs, but the MCD operates only 20 Animal Birth Control (ABC) centres, together managing a fraction of this population. In six months, just 65,000 dogs were sterilised and vaccinated, hindered by underfunding, low reimbursements (₹1,000 per surgery), and limited facilities. Experts estimate the city would need 1,000–2,000 shelters to meet the Court’s directive—costing around ₹10,000 crore, potentially exceeding Delhi’s annual healthcare budget.

2. Logistical and Time Constraints

Relocating such a large population in six months is a massive undertaking. Even if enough shelters were magically built overnight, staffing them with trained personnel, veterinarians, and competent support staff would require years of preparation—not just two months.

3. Contradiction with Established ABC Rules and PCA Act 1960

The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2023—framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960—explicitly prohibit the relocation of stray dogs. Rule 11(3),(19) mandates that dogs captured for sterilisation and vaccination "shall be released at the same place or locality from where they were captured".

The Supreme Court’s dismissive directive of ‘forget the rules for the time being’ is contradictory to these existing laws, sparking concerns about legal inconsistency. The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan also said the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, are "absurd”, insinuating that the scientifically accurate ruling should be bypassed.

4. Animal Welfare Concerns

Overcrowded shelters can become hotspots for disease, malnutrition, and stress-related behavioural issues. The quality of care would drop sharply if the priority shifts from sustainable management to sheer numbers.

Furthermore, if sufficient shelters with proper space and management are not built, they can easily become prone areas for territorial infighting and competitive deaths.

5. Ecological Impact

Stray dogs are part of the urban ecosystem—feeding on waste, controlling certain pest populations, and interacting with other street-dwelling species. A sudden mass removal could disrupt these dynamics, leading to unforeseen ecological imbalances.

For example, when street dogs were culled in Paris during the 1880s, the rat population surged dramatically, causing a different public health crisis. Similar unintended consequences could occur with rats, monkeys, and dogs from surrounding states if Delhi’s stray dogs were removed without careful ecological assessment.

6. The 'Vacuum Effect'

When a population of stray dogs is abruptly removed from an area, new dogs often move in to occupy the “vacated” territory, especially if food sources remain. This can lead to a rapid rebound in numbers, undoing the effects of the removal effort within months or years.

Emptying out the sterilised and vaccinated packs will cause an influx of unknown dogs that compromise the herd immunity created thus far and rapidly undo the efforts made in the right direction.

A More Feasible and Humane Approach

Instead of abrupt removal, a more balanced strategy would involve:

1. Scaling Up ABC (Sterilisation and Vaccination) Programs

·        Strengthening sterilisation campaigns, especially in high-risk zones, has proven effective in managing stray dog populations humanely, cost-effectively, and in line with current regulations.

·        By continuing the CVNR (catch-vaccinate-neuter-return) program, we can effectively eradicate disease spread, control dog populations, and humanely reduce incidences of attacks by generating stable packs.

2. Community-Driven Management

Leveraging community feeders and local caregivers, who already maintain relationships and monitor dog welfare, can enhance compliance and local accountability.

3. Enhanced Shelter Capacity Strategically, Not Mass Relocation

Rather than clearing all dogs, incremental expansion of shelters targeted at truly dangerous or sick animals makes the goal more achievable.
Priority must be placed on sustainable operations, humane standards, and ongoing care, not containment.

4. Public Awareness and Responsible Behaviour

Educating citizens on bite prevention, supporting safe feeding zones, and encouraging vaccinations.

5. Waste Management Improvements

Urban stray populations thrive when food waste is easily accessible. Improving waste disposal and reducing open garbage points directly impacts stray numbers over time.

The Bottom Line

While the Supreme Court’s intention to address stray dog-related conflicts in Delhi stems from genuine public safety concerns, the chosen approach of mass relocation and sheltering raises serious questions about feasibility, legality, and long-term impact. 

India already has a structured, legally backed Animal Birth Control framework that focuses on sterilisation, vaccination, and return to the original location—a method supported by both scientific evidence and humane principles. 

Abrupt ecological disruptions, the risk of the vacuum effect, and the strain on limited infrastructure make relocation a short-term fix at best. A more sustainable path lies in strengthening ABC implementation, improving waste management, and fostering coexistence through community awareness—balancing public safety with compassion and legal compliance.