Canine concerns: Municipalities ignore cost-effective, structured solutions

The Supreme Court’s order of August 11 directing municipal authorities to capture and house all stray dogs in the Delhi-National Capital Region in dedicated shelters, irrespective of their sterilisation and vaccination status, has focused on a critical urban issue. The apex court has directed the municipal authorities to set up shelters to house at least 5,000 dogs each and be equipped with sterilisation and vaccination facilities and CCTV cameras within eight weeks and report. The order is remarkable in its direction to municipal bodies to “forget the rules” — specifically the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules — which the Supreme Court had endorsed in 2009. Not surprisingly, the somewhat severe language — to make localities free of stray dogs without compromise and to take strict action against those who resist — has activists up in arms anticipating unleashed cruelty on stray dogs. The stringent tenor of the order may be open to criticism; but is also a reflection of the serial institutional failures to effectively address an issue that has expanded exponentially with the mushrooming of housing societies and gated communities.

 

This much is reflected in the growing incidence of dog-human conflict. According to the 2019 census, India had 20 million stray dogs — but guesstimates put the number at three times that. The government data shows that dog-bite incidents have risen from 2.1 million in 2022 to 3.7 million in 2024. One reason for the concern is the exposure of infants and the elderly (delivery agents on the roads should also be counted among the vulnerable). The number of deaths caused by rabies is more controversial. Rabies is a notifiable disease in India, so all hospitals dealing with such cases have to report them by law. The government data records only 54 human deaths from rabies in 2024, up from 50 the year before. The World Health Organization puts it at 18,000 to 20,000 every year.

 

Whatever the numbers, the Supreme Court’s order amplifies justifiable concerns. But it is likely to fail because it betrays a misunderstanding of municipal capabilities and the dynamics of dog population control. Stray-dog shelters will require an enormous expansion of resources that most municipalities simply do not have. Land to build shelters is one constraint — under international guidelines set in Guangzhou in 2007, each dog needs a minimum of 16 square feet to be housed humanely — and the money for the minimum upkeep is another. Delhi has just 20 shelters mostly to house dogs undergoing sterilisation. Removing stray dogs from a locality will not solve the problem either since others will inevitably take their place. Sensible structural solutions have long existed and have been shown to work when applied diligently and consistently — as Mumbai, Pune, and Jaipur have shown. Indeed, the ABC rules were framed on the basis of workable best practices that balance animal and human welfare. These provide for strays to be sterilised, vaccinated, and then released back to their localities where carers, of which India has no shortage, must feed them in designated areas. This exercise is cost-effective, since it is usually done at low cost by non-government organisations, but it demands continuous effort. Few municipal authorities have bothered to follow these rules. The result is that street dogs will be bearing the brunt of human failures.