Human Rights Vs Dog Rights: Activist Ire Over SC Order Missing The Point?

News18

17 hours ago

Far too many are mauled by packs of prowling dogs on the capital's streets. Most of the victims are toddlers and the aged who can't look out for themselves
The Supreme Court deserves a pat on its back. By ordering the Delhi government and civic bodies to begin removing stray dogs from streets and housing them in shelters, it has sunk its legal canines into the stray dog menace. Far too many are mauled by packs of prowling dogs on the capital's streets. Most of the victims are toddlers and the aged who can't look out for themselves. In standing up for the most vulnerable, the Supreme Court has firmly put their rights, human rights, first.
No sooner had the top court passed the order than activists lashed out, alleging that the verdict is a veritable dog's breakfast of callous inhumanity dressed up as justice for dog bite victims. Perhaps anticipating the backlash, the SC bench chided activists in open court, asking, 'All these animal activists, will they be able to bring back those who have fallen prey to rabies?" But the rhetoric hasn't tempered the emotionalism of the PETA-led animal rights lobby. But does their sentimental advocacy for what they call their 'heartbeat" miss the point and the facts?
Public safety first. Delhi records over 2,000 dog bites daily. That's about 7.3 lakh a year. Rabies kills 20,000 Indians annually. In the hierarchy of rights, shouldn't the right of a five-year-old not to be mauled or die from rabies outweigh a street dog's 'right" to roam free?
Second, ABC has failed in practice. After nearly two decades of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme, Delhi's stray population has ballooned to 6-7 lakh. The rule mandating sterilised dogs be returned to their original location is a logistical absurdity in a city of 1,484 sq km. Tracking each animal is impossible; in practice, many 'sterilised" dogs are not even tagged properly.
Third, we've overshot cost-effective solutions. In 2024-25, the MCD spent Rs 30 crore on ABC and feeding contracts. Yet municipal shelters remain under-capacity, unhygienic, and poorly supervised. Ironically, some of the loudest critics of the SC order are NGOs paid to run these facilities—the very entities whose inefficiency has allowed the crisis to spiral.
Fourth, many point to foreign models, but they don't fit. The Netherlands, Singapore, and parts of Australia eliminated strays starting with small populations, deep pockets, and strict enforcement. Delhi's scale, six lakh-plus dogs, and lower municipal resources make these comparisons irrelevant.
Fifth, the SC plan is humane. But the capture, sterilisation, vaccination, and sheltering, with CCTV oversight and penalties for obstruction, is workable only on paper. The questions that no one has an answer to, not even the SC, is where will Delhi house 6 lakh dogs? How will overcrowded, underfunded shelters cope? Who will feed, clean, and provide veterinary care at scale? Who will foot the Rs 15,000 crore bill? Without realistic capacity building, the SC's plan risks becoming another ABC—high on intent, low on results.
Which leads to the hard truth: in some countries—including parts of the US, Australia, and the UK—unadoptable, aggressive strays are humanely euthanised. It is neither cruel nor 'anti-animal"; it is a public health necessity when all else fails. Delhi's stray dog crisis has reached a point where the truth has begun to hurt—or should one say bite.
view comments
First Published:
August 12, 2025, 18:08 IST
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.