logo
Explained: How govt, courts have dealt with stray dogs

Explained: How govt, courts have dealt with stray dogs

The Supreme Court on Monday directed municipal authorities to pick up and house all stray dogs in Delhi and parts of the National Capital Region in dedicated shelters within eight weeks.
The directions were given in a case the top court took up suo motu on July 28 after a 'very disturbing and alarming' newspaper report about the death of a six-year old girl due to rabies.
'Infants and young children, at any cost, should not fall prey to rabies…The action should inspire confidence that they [children] can move freely without fear of being bitten by stray dogs,' Justice J B Pardiwala said. 'If any individual or organisation comes in the way of picking up stray dogs or rounding them up, we will proceed to take action,' he said.
In 2022, the apex court had upheld a Delhi High Court judgment which said that strays must be tended to and fed within their territories. A provision in the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which Justice Pardiwala called 'absurd', states that after immunisation and sterilisation, strays 'shall be released at the same place or locality from where they were captured'.
Stated government policy
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which aims to prevent 'the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals', is the primary animal rights legislation in India.
Under the Act, the Centre in 2001 promulgated the ABC (Dogs) Rules. These rules mandated the sterilisation and immunisation of strays by local authorities supported by animal welfare organisations and private individuals. Humane methods were specified for capturing dogs.
Notably, the rules mandated that dogs be released back into the same area or locality from where they were captured after undergoing sterilisation and immunisation. Euthanisation was only permitted if dogs were critically ill, fatally injured, or rabid.
The government has often reiterated its policy of managing stray dog populations through sterilisation and immunisation.
In 2022, the Animal Welfare Board of India, a statutory body formed by the 1960 Act, issued an advisory which said that 'all the RWAs and Citizens of India are requested not to take any kind of adverse action against the feeders of dogs, nor to relocate or resort to poisoning of dogs or other atrocities which is against the law of the land.'
In 2023, the Centre updated the 2001 ABC rules. The 2023 rules were more expansive in their scope to also cover stray cats, and created a three-tiered monitoring structure for immunisation and sterilisation of animals. Maintaining that stray dogs cannot be displaced, the ABC rules reclassified them as 'community animals', and included provisions for community animal feeding.
In April this year, S P Singh Baghel, Union Minister of State for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying gave a written response in Lok Sabha that stated that 'the intensive implementation of the ABC program by local bodies is the only rational and scientific solution to the overpopulation of the street dogs and controlling incidence of rabies'.
What courts have held
A government press release on the 2023 rules stated that they 'have addressed the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court' that has 'in various orders specifically mentioned that relocation of dogs cannot be permitted'.
Over the years, HCs and the SC have heard several cases, brought by concerned dog lovers or anti-stray residents welfare associations or citizen groups, on human-canine conflict.
HCs have given conflicting orders in these cases. In 2011, the Kerala HC held that local authorities 'cannot kill the stray dogs' and 'are bound to follow the 1960 Act and the 2001 (ABC) Rules'. On the other hand, the Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, and Karnataka HCs have separately held that local authorities are not bound by the 2001 rules and have discretionary powers under municipal regulations to kill stray dogs.
The apex court, while hearing appeals against High Court decisions or independent writ petitions, has usually not strayed beyond the regulatory scheme set by the state on such matters.
In November 2015, a division Bench of the SC comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh held that all municipal and local authorities must comply with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and rules made under it.
'Once that is done, we are disposed to think for the present that a balance between compassion to dogs and the lives of human beings, which is appositely called a glorious gift of nature, may harmoniously co-exist,' the Bench said.
In 2022, a three-judge SC Bench comprising Justices U U Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia upheld a stray dog-friendly judgment from the previous year in which Justice J R Midha of the Delhi HC had held that street dogs have a right to food and citizens have a right to feed them.
'Animals are sentient creatures with an intrinsic value. Therefore, protection of such beings is the moral responsibility of each and every citizen…,' Justice Midha had said. Notably, he emphasised that since they are territorial animals, dogs must be tended to and fed within their territories.
In May last year, in an order closing multiple stray dog-related cases, a division Bench of the SC comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol held that it is best for High Courts or 'other forums' to adjudicate independently on any local issues that may come up. Its only directive was that all decisions taken must be in accordance with the 'the new Rules (from 2023) putting in place mechanism for preventing the infliction of unnecessary pains and sufferings on animals, more specifically the canines'.
On Monday, Justice Pardiwala said: '…If you pick up a stray dog from one part, you sterilise the dog and put him at the same place, that's absolutely absurd… Why should that stray dog come back to the locality and for what?'
DOG BITES IN INDIA
THE LARGEST population of stray dogs is in India; numbers are not known, but are estimated to run into crores. In 2019, the government told Lok Sabha that stray dogs numbered 1.53 crore; it repeated this data in 2022.
MORE THAN 37 LAKH cases of dog bites were reported in the country in 2024, up from 30.5 lakh in 2023 and 21.9 lakh in 2022, according to government data from February this year. Nearly 4.3 lakh dog bites were reported in January this year.
IF THE DOG IS RABID, its bite can infect the victim with rabies, a viral disease that affects the central nervous system and is almost always fatal if not treated immediately. According to government data from February 2025, 54 people died from rabies in 2024, up from 50 deaths in 2023 and 21 deaths in 2022.
36% OF RABIES DEATHS in the world occur in India, according to estimates by the World Health Organization. Dog bites are responsible for about 96% of the mortality and morbidity associated with rabies in India, the WHO says. 30-60% of reported rabies cases and deaths in India occur in children under the age of 15 years, according to WHO.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Begin by creating shelters for 5,000 dogs': SC's Aug 11 full order now out
‘Begin by creating shelters for 5,000 dogs': SC's Aug 11 full order now out

Hindustan Times

time8 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

‘Begin by creating shelters for 5,000 dogs': SC's Aug 11 full order now out

The Supreme Court has, in its August 11 order to capture and put in shelters all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, called it 'a progressive exercise' — acknowledging that shelters could take time to be built and increased — and told the authorities to 'begin by creating dog shelter(s) for say 5,000 dogs in the next six-eight weeks'. Under no circumstances should the dogs be released back onto the streets, says SC's August 11 order.(PTI) The matter has since been referred to a larger bench of three judges for a hearing on August 14. Animals rights activists and several other sections questioned the August 11 order, arguing that it wasn't rooted in science even though the stray-dog issue needed to be addressed. Under no circumstances should the dogs be released back onto the streets after being 'captured, sterilized, dewormed and immunized as required by Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023', as per the detailed order uploaded on the SC website on Wednesday. Ordering immediate start of both exercises — that of rounding up the dogs, and the creation of infrastructure such as shelters and medical facilities — the order says these 'shall be undertaken simultaneously'. 'We do not want to hear about even a semblance of lethargy from the concerned authorities on the pre-text of awaiting the creation of shelters / pounds,' the order, however, adds. It warns authorities of strict action otherwise. 'The dog shelters/pounds should have sufficient personnel to sterilize, deworm and immunize stray dogs and also for looking after the stray dogs who would be detained,' it adds. The two-judge bench took suo motu notice of the stray dog issue — citing a rise in cases of dog bites — and passed orders covering "all localities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, Noida, Faridabad, Gurugram as well as areas on the outskirts".

SC orders SIT probe into 'nexus' between Noida officials & land owners
SC orders SIT probe into 'nexus' between Noida officials & land owners

Business Standard

time8 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

SC orders SIT probe into 'nexus' between Noida officials & land owners

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered an SIT probe into alleged irregularities in payment of compensation to land owners by Noida Authority, which in several cases was 'exorbitant' highlighting the nexus between senior officials and land owners. A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered a new special investigation team (SIT) of three Indian Police Service (IPS) officers, replacing the earlier SIT, which highlighted the irregularities in the land acquisition compensation payouts. The apex court also directed that there will be no project development in Noida without prior Environmental Impact Assessment and approval by the court's green bench, which hears environmental cases. In January this year, the court had constituted an SIT of three senior IPS officers from the UP cadre to investigate the 'overall functioning' of Noida Authority. The SIT report found that in at least 20 cases, land compensation paid to certain beneficiaries exceeded legal entitlements. It also named errant Noida Authority officials and raised concerns about potential collusion, centralised power, and a lack of transparency in the administrative operations of the authority. The court is currently hearing the anticipatory bail plea of a law officer of Noida over charges of 'release of huge amount of compensation in favour of some land owners who, it was alleged, were not entitled to seek such a higher compensation for their acquired land.' The new SIT, formed by the court on Wednesday, is directed to register preliminary enquiries and, if they find credible evidence of wrongdoing, escalate to FIRs under appropriate legal provisions. The court said that this process must be overseen by a police officer of at least Commissioner rank, who will also file periodic status reports to the court. The court has also told the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to place the findings before the Council of Ministers and appoint a Chief Vigilance Officer (from IPS cadre or deputed from the Comptroller and Auditor General) within four weeks. Additionally, a citizen advisory board is to be constituted within the same timeframe. The matter has been adjourned for eight weeks, during which the SIT's report must remain under strict judicial supervision.

Unfinished business of gender justice in India
Unfinished business of gender justice in India

Hindustan Times

time8 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

Unfinished business of gender justice in India

No history of gender justice laws in India can be written without drawing a direct, scarred line from the brutal assault on Bhanwari Devi in 1992 to the gut-wrenching tragedy of the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder. Not as isolated crimes, but as eruptions of women's long-endured trauma into public and legal arenas. In 2012, a 23-year-old woman's brutal gangrape and fatal assault on a bus in Delhi by six men tore through the nation's conscience. And this time, the State's response was swift. (HT Photo) The story of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) begins not in the hushed halls of the Supreme Court, but in a village in Rajasthan, where Bhanwari Devi, a grassroots worker with the Women Development Programme, dared to challenge age-old patriarchal traditions by trying to prevent the child marriage of a one-year-old girl in her village. As punishment, she was brutally gang-raped by five Gujjar landlords. What followed was a chilling display of apathy and systemic failure. The police refused to file an FIR, Bhanwari Devi's medical report was incomplete, and the court acquitted the accused, casting doubt on her husband's testimony and asserting that upper caste men wouldn't rape a lower caste woman. The verdict struck a match to years of simmering feminist anger. The 1980s and 90s were the decades of dowry deaths, bride burnings and misogyny. Women across India were fighting back, marching the streets, protesting and picketing. Bhanwari Devi was assaulted while on duty. Yet, her employer — the State — offered neither protection nor support. Sparking a firestorm of fury within women's collectives and Dalit groups, Bhanwari's case became a lightning rod for the historic case that was to follow. It was now up to the highest court to do what the lower court would not: Rule that workplace safety is a constitutional right. And so, in 1997 a historic PIL was filed by a cohort of organisations under the banner of Vishakha against the Rajasthan and the Union governments. The Supreme Court recognised gender equality as integral to rights under Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19(1)(g) (right to practice profession), and 21 (right to life with dignity). It held that sexual harassment at the workplace violates these rights, making it a constitutional issue. In the absence of legislation at the time, the Court framed the landmark Vishakha Guidelines — binding directives making employers responsible for safe, non-discriminatory workplaces. It also acknowledged the psychology of shame, the courage required for women to come forward, and the reality of police and judicial indifference. Yet, despite the celebrated judgment, implementation remained spotty. Few employers complied, fewer women dared complain, and the State dragged its feet on making the guidelines law. Societal attitudes, too, remained stubbornly unchanged. Until December 2012. In 2012, a 23-year-old woman's brutal gangrape and fatal assault on a bus in Delhi by six men tore through the nation's conscience. It exposed once again the State's chronic failure to protect women in public spaces, reigniting the public and legislative urgency begun by Vishakha. Once again, the country erupted in thunderous, unstoppable outrage. And this time, the State's response was swift. All the accused were arrested and charged with sexual assault and murder. One died in police custody. The remaining four adult men were tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. The juvenile received the maximum sentence under the Juvenile Justice Act: Three years in a reform facility. But most importantly, it snapped Parliament out of legislative slumber. The government responded with historic, if long overdue, laws. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 finally gave legislative teeth to the Vishakha Guidelines, making employer inaction a punishable offence. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, expanded the legal definition of sexual violence, added offences like stalking and voyeurism, increased penalties, and mandated swifter trials. The arc from Bhanwari Devi's assault to Delhi rape-murder is a reminder that justice in India too often arrives only after unimaginable suffering. Vishakha exposed the cost of legal neglect; the Delhi rape and murder laid bare the deadly gap between law and enforcement. Yes, laws now exist. But women still fear walking home alone. Victims still face shame and disbelief. The courts still drag, and perpetrators still walk free. Why must women bleed before the law takes notice? Rights mean little without action. That is the unfinished business of gender justice. Bhanwari's last surviving rapist still walks free. Yet her legacy planted a stake in the ground. The fight is unfinished. But the path is lit. Insiyah Vahanvaty is a socio-political commentator and the author of The Fearless Judge. Ashish Bharadwaj is professor and dean of BITS Pilani's Law School in Mumbai. The views expressed are personal.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store