12-08-2025
Don't blame the street dogs. It is only an easy way out
Written by Apoorva and Sruthi K
On August 11, the Supreme Court of India ordered that all street dogs in Delhi be relocated to dog shelters within a period of eight weeks. This order was passed after the Court took suo motu cognisance of a news report highlighting a rise in fatal street dog attacks on infants in the national capital. The Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had earlier expressed concerns about the growing threat posed to infants, children, and the elderly by unvaccinated street dogs.
Human-canine conflict is not a novel issue in India. The issue has been discussed, debated, litigated, decided, and re-opened for discussion multiple times. In the present case, the Supreme Court's concern is understandable. When there is complete failure on behalf of the state to address an issue, even the doctrine of separation of powers permits the judiciary to step in and hold the executive accountable. However, the Court's August 11 intervention is legally problematic on multiple counts.
The first major problem with the order is that it was passed in contravention of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 and the PCA (Animal Birth Control) Rules, 2023, which prohibit the relocation of dogs and provide for the establishment of scientifically proven and robust animal birth control programmes across the country. Passing an order without the application of existing law makes this decision arbitrary. It also sends the wrong message to the general public. When the highest court of the land can choose to disregard the country's laws, what can stop common citizens from believing themselves above it?
Second, by ignoring its own jurisprudence on the issue, the Supreme Court has violated the principle of stare decisis (to stand by things decided). The Supreme Court has already settled this in Animal Welfare Board of India vs People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (2024). Reopening the issue in just a little over one year will dilute the people's faith in the certainty and finality of decisions of the apex court. If an issue decided by the Supreme Court can be litigated in the absence of a significant change in the underlying facts, there will be no end to litigation. This is problematic because hyper-focusing on litigation diverts the state's already limited resources away from programmatic implementation.
Third, the Supreme Court's order violates a core principle of natural justice: Audi alteram partem (hear the other side). The apex court declined to entertain the repeated requests for impleadment by parties that had the locus standi (the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court) to intervene in the case. In fact, the Court even refused to heed the suggestions of the amicus curiae (friend of the court) that it had appointed on its own. Further, the lack of a reasoned order deals a heavy blow to transparent and accountable judicial decision-making. The order is not based on evidence, is unscientific, and is virtually impossible to implement. It is evident that the Court has not considered the impact of enforced dog sheltering on public health, public safety, or even the public exchequer while arriving at its decision.
Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution places a fundamental duty to have compassion for living creatures on citizens. By ordering that it will take action against any individual or organisation that tries to obstruct the forced relocation of street dogs, the highest constitutional court is telling citizens that they could be punished for performing their fundamental duties. As a constitutional court, it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to uphold the Constitution, not undermine it.
The Court's solution is more likely to create new problems than resolve the old ones. In its anger at the present state of affairs, the Supreme Court has taken the easy way out: Blaming the street dogs.
Villainising street dogs is a convenient smokescreen to hide the total failure of the state machinery (the third tier of government in particular) in performing their legal duties. For instance, a majority of local authorities have failed to successfully implement humane population control measures to curb the rising street dog population in their jurisdictions. Further, while anti-rabies vaccination for street dogs has been limited, local authorities have struggled to humanely euthanise street dogs who have been confirmed to be rabid. Poor solid waste management by local bodies has made the situation worse.
In this context, it is important to recognise that human-canine conflict is not an issue that can be solved through the stroke of a pen. Instead of focusing on locking up all the animals, judicial intervention should address the root cause of the problem of human-canine conflict: The failure of the third tier of government to implement animal birth control and anti-rabies programmes. Whatever it may choose to do, there is a need for the Court (and the media) to avoid further polarisation and politicisation of the issue.
Apoorva and Sruthi work at ALPN Research Foundation, a think-tank working on animal law and policy in India
