Contents
Introduction
India records ~1.6 crore dog bites annually (MoHFW 2023) and is home to the world’s largest stray dog population. The Supreme Court’s recent order on relocating stray dogs raises ethical, scientific, and legal concerns.
Supreme Court’s Order and Its Rationale
The Supreme Court (2024–25) directed:
- Removal of stray dogs from public spaces such as schools, hospitals, railway stations.
- Housing them permanently in shelters.
- Preventing their re-release.
- Purpose was to reduce dog attacks and ensure public safety.
Why the Order is Considered Inhumane and Anti-Science
| Dimension | Why the order is problematic |
| Scientific | Violates established scientific model of CNVR (Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release) endorsed by WHO, World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), and UN FAO. Forced confinement creates a vacuum effect—new unsterilised dogs migrate into vacated territories. |
| Legal | Contradicts Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which legally mandate sterilisation + release, not confinement. “Removal without release” indirectly encourages killing, violating Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s anti-cruelty provisions. |
| Practicality | India has 780 districts but less than 10% have functional ABC centres (MoHFW 2024). No capacity to house lakhs of stray dogs—no shelters, funds, or trained veterinary manpower. |
| Humaneness | Permanent confinement = psychological trauma for an animal evolved to live in territorial social groups. Equivalent to mass imprisonment of sentient beings. |
Example: Bhutan adopted nationwide CNVR (2009–2023) and achieved near-total sterilisation, leading to sharp decline in dog bite and rabies cases.
- How the Order Can Exacerbate Human–Animal Conflict
- Increase in new, unvaccinated dogs (Vacuum Effect): Removing territorial vaccinated dogs → vacant niche → unvaccinated dogs move in → higher rabies risk.
- Illegal and panic-driven killing or relocation: Municipalities lacking shelters may resort to: poisoning, dumping dogs on highways and illegal relocations. Such practices worsen aggression and disperse rabies.
- Loss of community cooperation: Community dog feeders assist in CNVR monitoring. Criminalising feeding breaks this cooperation, delaying sterilisation campaigns.
- Rabies management setback: India already accounts for 36% of global rabies deaths (WHO, 2024). Removing vaccinated stray dogs will reverse progress toward “Rabies Free India by 2030” (National Rabies Control Programme).
Constitutional Dimensions
- Article 21 protects the right to life—not just human, but interpreted by courts to extend to animal dignity (A. Nagaraja Judgment, 2014).
- Fundamental Duties (Art. 51A(g)) impose responsibility to show compassion to animals. Thus, the order conflicts with India’s constitutional morality and animal welfare jurisprudence.
The Humane and Effective Path: CNVR + Public Health
- Global best practices show: CNVR + vaccination + community participation is the only sustainable method.
- Need to invest in infrastructure: one ABC centre per district, trained vets, funding to urban local bodies.
Conclusion
As Justice H.R. Khanna noted, “Compassion is a higher law.” Effective policy must be science-based and humane—dogs need sterilisation, not confinement; conflict reduces only when dignity guides governance.
