Delhi's Stray Dog Order: Why It's Dividing India, What Each Side Wants, And What Happens Next
The Supreme Court's 8-week order to remove strays from Delhi-NCR has triggered a fierce debate between animal rights groups and public safety advocates
The Supreme Court's recent order to remove all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR streets within six to eight weeks has sparked a heated public debate. Issued during a suo motu hearing into rising dog-bite incidents, the ruling applies to Delhi, Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad, and covers both sterilised and unsterilised animals.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan called the situation 'extremely grim" and declared: 'Infants and young children should not at any cost fall prey to stray dog bites leading to rabies."
The order instructs civic bodies to build shelter capacity for at least 5,000 dogs as an immediate step, hire staff for sterilisation and vaccination, install CCTV in shelters, create a helpline for bite reports, and consider a dedicated task force. No dog caught under this drive is to be returned to the streets, and anyone obstructing the process risks contempt proceedings.
Animal rights groups and activists argue the order violates the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which require that sterilised and vaccinated dogs be released back into their original locations, a framework that has been in place since the 2013 version of the rules and backed by earlier Supreme Court orders. They argue that the real problem is chronic underfunding and poor implementation of sterilisation programmes, not the rules themselves.
PETA India has called the ruling 'impractical" and 'illogical", stressing that Delhi's estimated 10 lakh stray dogs make mass sheltering 'simply impossible" and risk 'very bad" conditions. Activists also warn of trauma, starvation, and disease outbreaks if dogs are confined in large numbers.
Adding political weight, Rahul Gandhi has called the blanket removals 'cruel" and a 'step back from decades of humane, science-backed policy", stressing that public safety and animal welfare 'go hand in hand" and that 'voiceless souls are not problems to be erased." MP Saket Gokhale has written to the Chief Justice of India seeking a stay and review of the directions.
Celebrity voices have amplified the pushback. Janhvi Kapoor and Varun Dhawan described strays as 'part of the community, providing comfort, security, and companionship", saying the order strips them of safety and freedom. Singer Chinmayi Sripaada called it a 'death sentence" and linked it to cultural symbolism, noting that dogs are the vehicle of Lord Kala Bhairava. She also warned that mass removal would lead to the abandonment of pet dogs, especially Indies, into already overcrowded shelters.
Filmmaker Siddharth Anand termed it a 'death warrant" and urged petitions to stop what he called a 'genocide of stray dogs". Comedian Vir Das shared pictures of his adopted Indies, encouraging adoption and donations to NGOs 'at this critical time".
From Sterilisation Drives To Feeding Zones: The Alternatives On The Table
Protesters propose strengthening the ABC programme with proper funding, better coordination between civic bodies, and partnerships with NGOs to scale up sterilisation and vaccination drives. They recommend regulated feeding zones to reduce human–animal conflict, public awareness campaigns to promote safe coexistence, and stricter penalties for illegal breeding and abandonment.
Encouraging adoption, particularly of Indie dogs, is another priority, alongside adapting global best practices where sustained sterilisation and vaccination have sharply reduced rabies without mass culling or confinement.
Why Many Residents Say The Move Is Long Overdue
Support for the Supreme Court's order has so far come largely from ordinary residents. Many see it as a long-overdue public safety measure, arguing that aggressive packs and rising bite cases—particularly involving children—cannot be addressed if dogs are released back after sterilisation.
Some parents have voiced fears for their young children's safety, with one social media user writing: 'No one should have to risk the life of their three-year-old child because someone somewhere is compassionate about stray dogs. It's that simple." Others, including self-described dog owners, say they 'love dogs" but believe the stray menace has become unmanageable, especially during night shifts or early-morning walks.
Several have challenged activists to adopt dogs themselves if they oppose the order, with one post reading: 'Dear stray dog lovers, if you are this upset with the SC decision to take the strays off the road, please take a few into your homes… feeding stale chapatis on the road does NOT make you an animal activist." Supporters echo the court's reasoning that returning dogs to public spaces is 'absurd" when the aim is to prevent attacks.
Shelters, Staff, CCTV: What The SC Wants Done In Eight Weeks
Civic bodies in Delhi, Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad have less than two months to start mass pickups of all strays and move them to shelters. They must create initial capacity for 5,000 dogs, with expansion likely needed given the scale of the population. Hiring veterinary and support staff, vaccinating and sterilising the dogs, installing CCTV for monitoring, and running a helpline for bite incidents are part of the court's checklist.
Coordination across municipalities will be essential to avoid duplication or gaps, and regular updates will be required for the court's review. Any obstruction could invite contempt proceedings.
Over the coming weeks, petitions, protests, adoption drives, and donation campaigns from activists, celebrities, and political voices will run parallel to the authorities' push to meet the court's deadline.
About the Author
Karishma Jain
Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at News18.com, writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follow her @kar...Read More
Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
India's Supreme Court PETA India stray dog menace
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
August 12, 2025, 16:43 IST
News explainers Delhi's Stray Dog Order: Why It's Dividing India, What Each Side Wants, And What Happens Next
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
29 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Losing hope on Jammu and Kashmir being granted statehood, says CM Omar Abdullah
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Friday said that his hope about the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir is fading, PTI reported. 'My well-wishers told me something big for Jammu and Kashmir will be announced from Delhi on Independence Day,' the chief minister said during his Independence Day address in Srinagar. 'I was even told that papers were being prepared [for statehood]. We waited, but nothing happened.' VIDEO | Independence Day 2025: Addressing a gathering at Bakshi Stadium in Srinagar, J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah says, 'More than six years have passed since the people of Jammu and Kashmir last heard their representative address them from here. When I last spoke from this… — Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) August 15, 2025 Abdullah further announced that over the coming eight weeks, he and his team would go door to door across all 90 Assembly constituencies to collect signatures in support of restoring statehood, The Indian Express reported. These signatures will be presented before the Supreme Court, he said. 'We will ask them if they want J&K to be a state again or not,' Abdullah said. '… If they are not ready, then I will accept my defeat and accept that J&K is satisfied with these conditions. Abdullah also called the Supreme Court's remarks on Thursday as unfortunate, The Indian Express reported. He said that while Pakistan was 'punished for 'three-four days', the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who have raised their voices against such attacks, have been punished for years. 'We are not with the Pahalgam attackers,' the National Conference leader said. 'We do not accept the Pahalgam attack. But despite that, today the Pahalgam attack is being used to deny us statehood.' On Thursday, the court noted that ground realities in the Union Territory, including incidents such as the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, cannot be ignored. Statehood for Jammu and Kashmir The Bharatiya Janata Party-led Centre had abrogated Article 370, which gave special status to the erstwhile state, in August 2019. It also bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. In December 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2019 order abrogating Article 370 and ordered the Centre to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. In January, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said that he wanted to give the Centre the 'first opportunity' to restore the Union Territory's statehood before seeking legal recourse. The National Conference leader told reporters that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had himself committed to restoring the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir. 'Every government or every individual has recourse to courts,' Omar Abdullah said. 'But that was never going to be our first option.'
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Aaditya Thackeray lashes out at BCCI over India vs Pakistan matches: ‘It's a joke to say we are bound by the Asia Cup Rules'
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray on Friday lashed out at the BCCI over India Pakistan cricket matches in the Asia Cup, saying that after so many efforts of the Union government to tell the world that Islamabad is behind the Pahalgham attack, the 'greed for money of the cricketing body stands above the sacrifice of the armed forces'. 'After so many efforts of the Union Government and our country to tell the world that Pakistan is behind the Pahalgham attack, the greed for money of the BCCI stands above the sacrifice of the Armed Forces, the Nation and even the PM saying blood and water cannot flow together. With all the might that BCCI has in the ICC (International Cricket Council), it's a joke to say we are bound by the Asia Cup Rules,' Thackeray posted on X. The Indian cricket team is scheduled to play a game against Pakistan in the upcoming Asia Cup 2025 in September. The tournament is set to be hosted in the UAE, and The Men in Blue will clash against The Men in Green on 14th September. लाल किल्ल्यावरून आज पंतप्रधानांनी जे सांगितलं, त्यापेक्षाही आपण वरचढ आहोत असं जर @BCCI ला वाटत असेल तर खरच ही एक लाजिरवाणी गोष्ट आहे. पहलगाम हल्ल्यामागे पाकिस्तानचा हात असल्याचं जगाला पटवून देण्यासाठी केंद्र सरकारने आणि आपल्या देशाने इतके प्रयत्न केले, तरीही सशस्त्र दलांचं… — Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) August 15, 2025 The possibility of at least one match up between India and Pakistan at the tournament has been a matter of some controversy. The ACC has stated in its statement that there is potential for more games between the two teams after the group stage with their set to be a Super Four stage and then a final. Even former cricketers Harbhajan Singh and Manoj Tiwary had questioned the decision off the two countries playing with each other after the Pahalgam attack. 'The situation was so bad, how can we think of an India-Pakistan match? I feel that it should be considered again and the India-Pakistan match should not happen in such an environment,' Tiwary had said, speaking on ANI. 'They (the Indian team) need to understand what is important and what is not. This is as simple as that. For me, the soldier who stands on the border, whose family often doesn't get to see him, who sometimes sacrifices his life and never returns home – their sacrifice is so immense for all of us. Compared to that, this is a very small thing, that we can't skip playing one cricket match. It's a very small matter,' Harbhajan was quoted as saying by The Times of India. 'Our government has the same stance, 'Khoon aur paani ek saath nahi beh sakte.' (blood and sweat cannot co-exist). It cannot be the case that there's fighting on the border, tensions between the two nations, and we go to play cricket. Until these big issues are resolved, cricket is a very small matter. The nation always comes first,' he had added. (With agency inputs)
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Friends & foes in an uncertain, shifting world
President Donald Trump's coercive tariffs on India and indulgence of Pakistan have turned euphoria about India-US partnership under his leadership into bewildered dismay and rage. The sequence and the corrosive language suggest that tariffs are a manifestation and expression of problems beyond trade. It also betrays our lack of economic leverage unlike China's. Various reasons have been attributed to his decisions that do not bear repeating here. There is politicisation of the relationship in the US not seen in the past three decades, with the White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, a Make America Great Again (MAGA) ideologue, joining the chorus of criticism on India's purchase of Russian oil. The Indian political and street mood is now, justifiably, furious at how the country has been treated by the US even as everyone realises the importance of that country and the bilateral relationship. (PTI) In India, there is domestic political impact due to the huge investment in the relationship; geopolitical ramifications because of the strategic bets we made in a shifting global environment; and, economic consequences from setback to exports and foreign direct investment (FDI) flows. Of equal concern is Pakistan. There have been multiple short-lived U-turns in the US-Pakistan relations that do not end well for either. But, every time US-Pakistan relations improve, Pakistan is emboldened in its military adventurism and terrorism against India. Pakistan also hopes to capitalise on President Trump's obsession with peace-making to inveigle him into mediating the 'Kashmir issue'. The government has been rightly firm on red lines for its sensitive sectors and sovereign choices, yet restrained in statements and open to negotiations. For a number of reasons, this is not a 1998 moment, but there are lessons from it. Amidst an absolute freeze then, India chose engagement over hostility. As then, this crisis is an opportunity to renegotiate the relationship with clarity and strength. Since the transformation of India-US relations began in 2000, there have been differences, including on ties with Russia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that both sides have navigated. The challenge, perhaps, is that we are dealing with a president with no precedence. Engagement with the US must continue and a way forward is found, without compromising our national interests. The relationship has substance, multiple dimensions and strong institutional mechanisms to provide resilience. However, beyond the vulnerabilities arising from the vicissitudes of the relationship, broad global trends require an appraisal of our policies. The transformation of India-US relations started in an era of unipolar US power reinforced by a strong transatlantic partnership. China was still not a major power and considered amenable to integration into the western order. The US–Russia relationship had not reached the present level of hostility. That geopolitical space which allowed multidirectional relationships is shrinking. There is also the expectations gap, more visible in the mature state than in the period of courtship, between a less self-assured US with unipolar ambitions and neat allies-adversaries dichotomy, and a rising India of strategic autonomy and multipolar inclinations. The fissures were beginning to appear during the Biden era. But it was papered over because of the overriding objective of containing China based on the classic American foreign policy goals and strategy of both direct containment and involvement of formal and informal alliances that necessitated accommodation of differences. President Trump will deal directly with China and pursue a different set of goals with a range of possible outcomes. With allies, the relationships will be on independent tracks based on perceived grievances and extractive possibilities, as Japan, Korea, Australia and the EU have seen or Taiwan may experience. More broadly, he has diluted or dismantled the instruments of US engagement — trade, technology, investment, aid, education, mobility, soft power, institutional reinforcement, guarantees and commitments. Even as countries are trying to negotiate a least cost agreement in the short-term, there will be the inevitable hedging, diversification and regionalisation that will diminish American power and influence, including in the Indo Pacific. China has overtaken the US in influence and power in the Asean region. Russia has weathered the worst over the past three years. Europe, buffeted by three powers, is in search of strategic influence. Trump is accelerating the erosion of West-built global institutions. Brics today evokes more interest than western institutions. Multipolarity is a rising tide. In this world of change, India's pursuit of strategic autonomy is a stronger imperative. So, as we rebuild ties with the US, we must do so on realistic foundations. At the same time, we must reinvigorate and restructure our broader global engagement, including with Russia, China and Europe, beginning with our home that is Asia and the Indian Ocean. Consistent with our values, our position must also carry the moral weight of principles, as for example on the tragedy unfolding in Gaza, which will also increase our standing in the Global South. In trade, we must do all we can to ensure competitive access to the US market, but also hasten the pursuit of other destinations that together account for over 80% of India's exports. If India is to increase exports on scale, we must pursue major economic reforms at home; invest in people, innovation and technology; and integrate more into the global value chains (GFCs). There is strong correlation between high-quality free trade agreements and global value chains, which account for 50-70% of global trade. Potential critical and bottleneck products account for around 20% in global trade, with almost 66% of the share of the exports in these products originating from East Asia-Pacific. Global trade is transitioning from multilateralism to regionalism and bilateralism, accelerated by US policies since 2008. We are on that path, too. The scope and coverage of the UK comprehensive economic and trade agreement and our EU proposal reflect our new ambitions. We must also revisit our agreements with Asian powers and find a modus vivendi with China. The government's emphasis on energy security through renewable, hydrogen and nuclear sources and on digital sovereignty is the right course. Defence capabilities and indigenisation, already a high priority, need a stronger boost. Foreign collaborations must take into partners' history, policies and geopolitical positions, and create genuine capabilities in India, not technological dependencies. For India, this crisis is an opportunity to build its future and pursue the path to be the power we wish to be. Jawed Ashraf is a former Indian ambassador. The views expressed are personal.
