By Devendra Kumar Budakoti
In India, almost every major issue—whether it concerns policy, rights, or governance—inevitably lands up in the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, even the issue of stray dogs, which should ideally be addressed by local municipal bodies, has escalated to the country’s highest judicial authority. This reflects not only the inadequacy of municipal laws but also the inefficiency of local governance mechanisms in handling such civic concerns.
India has the highest population of stray dogs and cats in the world. The country also reports the most cases of rabies deaths globally -accounting for nearly 36% of all rabies fatalities. These statistics underscore the scale and severity of the stray dog problem, turning it from a municipal concern into a national public health issue.
Laws like the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 prohibit the relocation, removal, or killing of stray dogs, thereby offering them legal protection. While well-intentioned, these laws often clash with the growing public concern over safety, particularly in urban areas.
On 11 August, the Supreme Court ordered the removal of stray dogs from the streets of Delhi and the National Capital Region, directing that they be moved to shelters. This sparked an immediate outcry from animal rights activists and pet lovers, who took to the streets to protest what they saw as a draconian move. Among the critics was renowned Australian animal rights advocate Philip Wollen, who warned that such shelters could become “torture chambers” for the animals.
The emotional reactions from urban animal lovers, many of whom treat their pets like family, seemed to overshadow the complex realities of stray dog management. Their concerns appeared to stem from the fear that their well-groomed pets—like ‘Rocky,’ who lives indoors and responds to English commands—would be subjected to the same fate as free-roaming ‘Tommy’ from the village, who is part of the rural community and cared for collectively.
The backlash against the Supreme Court’s order was so intense that the original two-judge bench ruling was withheld. A larger bench of three judges has now been constituted to re-examine the matter, with a verdict eagerly awaited by all stakeholders, especially urban pet owners and animal welfare groups.
The episode also highlights the influential role of India’s urban middle class. Their activism, amplified by media coverage, brings swift attention and response from both judiciary and government. However, one hopes that such public advocacy extends beyond pet-related concerns to include other pressing urban issues—such as street children, homelessness, beggary and road safety.
Advocacy groups formed by the middle class should be encouraged and institutionalised, not just as voices for animals, but as broader civil society stakeholders. Their capacity to mobilise support and attract judicial sympathy could be harnessed for shaping inclusive public policy on a range of civic issues.
What began as a local governance failure has now morphed into a national debate on rights, responsibilities, and humane solutions. While protecting animals is important, it must be balanced with public health, safety, and effective governance.
Finally, we Indians must remember that India is also a great democracy, where stray dogs issue is heard by a three-member bench of the Supreme Court!
(The author is a sociologist and an alumnus of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. His
research work is quoted in books of Nobel Laureate Prof Amartya Sen)
