SC's 'advice' reveals deep fault lines over the issue of stray dogs

Loving or hating dogs is beside the point. For the good of both people and animals, the Indy population needs to be controlled

Earlier this month, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court advised a Noida resident who had complained of being harassed for feeding stray dogs to feed them in her home or open a shelter. Predictably, responses to these passing comments — which the frenzied social media world mistakenly interpreted as a judgment — revealed the deep fault lines over the issue of stray dogs. In India, you are either a dog lover or hater, with no scope for mutual comprehension. In fact, the barrage of uninformed comment from both sides of the divide following this “advice” from the apex court highlights like nothing else the gross institutional failure to sensibly deal with a problem that is gaining momentum as growing urbanisation encroaches on spaces once inhabited by animals and birds. 

It can be assumed that Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta are not fans of Indies, the popular term for street dogs. They appear to have had bad experiences during a morning walk or cycle ride. The inconvenient truth for them, however, is the Animal Birth Control (or ABC) Rules of 2023 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which incorporated guidelines from Supreme Court orders. Among its provisions are rules requiring resident welfare associations or local bodies to make provisions for feeding community animals and involve residents who feed animals. 

Big-hearted as these rules may seem in favour of stray animals, their intention is actually to balance animal welfare with public safety. That’s because the rules also stipulate that dogs need to be neutered and vaccinated to control the population and prevent the spread of rabies. In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant was seeking directions to the local authorities to set up feeding points at strategic locations under the ABC rules. 

As Hiranmay Karlekar pointed out in an incisive piece in the Indian Express, in 2022, a two-judge Supreme Court Bench stayed a Bombay High Court order banning public feeding of street dogs and expunged similar remarks as their lordships expressed in the apex court two weeks ago. 

Why does the law mandate feeding street dogs? That is principally to ensure that they do not scavenge and are nourished enough to be neutered. Regular feeding also reduces the chances of dogs turning feral — though this factor is also a function of the gratuitous cruelty to which they are often vulnerable. The growing number of dog bite cases — a stunning 22,00,000 recorded in 2024 alone, causing 48 deaths — is testimony to the asymmetrical and combative nature of the relationship between dogs and humans in India. 

What this case has unwittingly revealed is the outright abdication of responsibility of municipal authorities around India towards the Indy population. The appellant in this case pointed out that the authorities have done nothing to designate feeding spots. No less reprehensible is the absence of neutering programmes that would go a long way towards controlling the Indy population — and is also an integral part of the ABC Rules.  With exceptions such as Lucknow, Mumbai and, for a while Delhi (where neutering zeal has waned) no municipal corporation has a sustained stray neutering programme, although there is no shortage of NGOs to humanely undertake this work. 

So 62 to 70 million Indies crowd Indian cities today, most leading a miserable existence for survival against rampant urbanisation. This growing man-Indy conflict is compounded by uninformed opinion. Unable to comprehend why the Indy population is burgeoning, urbanites want them relocated, and many cruelly connive to do so. This was the solution Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta sought as part of a “cleanliness” drive. It is a surprising suggestion coming from a former law graduate given that the Supreme Court has prohibited the relocation of dogs — with good reason. Dogs are inherently territorial; relocating them invites death-threatening attacks from occupying packs. 

With their stray remarks (forgive the pun) their lordships have unintentionally muddied the Great Indy Debate. Loving or hating dogs is beside the point. For the good of man and animal, the Indy population needs to be controlled. And for that, urban administrations need to step in fast. That’s the key point the Supreme Court should have underscored.