Source: The post Supreme Court order on street dogs raises legal concerns has been created, based on the article “A CONVENIENT SMOKESCREEN” published in “Indian Express” on 13th August 2025. Supreme Court order on street dogs raises legal concerns.
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2-Issues Relating to Development and Management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health.
Context: On August 11, the Supreme Court ordered that all street dogs in Delhi be moved to shelters within eight weeks, after reports of fatal attacks on infants. While addressing safety concerns, the order raises legal, procedural, and governance issues, and risks undermining established animal welfare frameworks.
For detailed information on Judicial Views on Killing Stray Dogs read this article here
Judicial Intervention and Legal Concerns
- Background and Trigger: The Court acted suo motu after a news report about fatal dog attacks. It highlighted risks posed by unvaccinated dogs to children, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups.
- Contradiction with Laws: The order violates the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which prohibit relocation and instead require scientific birth control programmes. Ignoring these laws makes the decision arbitrary and sets a harmful precedent.
- Departure from Judicial Consistency: The Supreme Court had already resolved this matter in Animal Welfare Board of India vs People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (2024). Revisiting it without new facts undermines the principle of stare decisis, reducing faith in the finality of judgments and diverting resources from actual implementation.
Procedural and Constitutional Issues
- Ignoring Stakeholders: Parties with legal standing were denied participation, and suggestions of the amicus curiae were disregarded. This breaches the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side).
- Lack of Evidence and Reasoning: The decision is unscientific, impractical, and does not consider public health, safety, or financial implications. It lacks transparency and accountable reasoning.
- Conflict with Fundamental Duties: Article 51A(g) requires citizens to have compassion for living creatures. Threatening punitive action against those opposing relocation risks punishing individuals for fulfilling this constitutional duty.
Failures Driving Human-Canine Conflict
- Local Governance Gaps: Many municipal bodies fail to implement humane animal birth control and anti-rabies vaccination. Rabid dogs are not humanely euthanised promptly, increasing risks.
- Poor Waste Management: Inadequate solid waste disposal sustains stray dog populations, worsening conflict.
- Policy Focus Misplaced: Targeting street dogs is a distraction from the failure of authorities to perform their legal duties in population control and public health measures.
Path to Sustainable Solutions
- Addressing Root Causes: The problem cannot be solved through relocation orders alone. Strengthening birth control, vaccination drives, and waste management is essential.
- Ensuring Balanced Intervention: Judicial actions should be lawful, evidence-based, and coordinated with executive agencies to avoid polarisation and politicisation.
Question for practice:
Discuss the legal and governance challenges in addressing human-canine conflict in India.
