Supreme Court order on stray dogs and Delhi’s shelter infrastructure

Home » Supreme Court order on stray dogs and Delhi’s shelter infrastructure

Supreme Court Order (August 2025): Directed civic bodies and authorities in Delhi-NCR to relocate stray dogs from streets to shelters.
Objective: Address rising dog bite incidents and improve public safety while adhering to animal welfare norms.
Legal Background:
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – provides safeguards for animals, but also allows regulation to protect public health.
- Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 – mandate sterilisation, vaccination, and relocation to shelters for unclaimed dogs.
- Previous SC & High Court observations have balanced animal rights with public safety.

Relevance : GS 1(Society ) , GS 2(Social Justice)

Infrastructure Gap:
- No dedicated large-scale government shelters in the capital.
- Reliance on NGO-run ABC sterilisation centres, already overburdened.
Data from MCD:
- Sterilisation/Immunisation:
  - 2021–22: 91,326
  - 2022–23: 59,076
  - 2023–24: 79,959
  - 2024–25: 1,31,137
  - 2025 (Apr–Jul): 65,000
- Dog Bite Cases:
  - 2021: 6,691
  - 2022: 17,874
  - 2023: 25,210
Trend: Despite increased sterilisation, dog bite cases rising — points to inefficiency in controlling stray population or behavioural issues.

Infrastructure Deficit:
- Capacity shortfall — shelters & sterilisation facilities cannot accommodate the estimated 4–5 lakh stray dogs in Delhi.
- NGOs report they can house only 100–400 dogs at a time.
Financial Constraints:
- Shelter construction & operation requires substantial budget allocation.
- Dependence on NGOs without long-term government funding.
Operational Barriers:
- ABC programs disrupted due to lack of space, legal hurdles, and delays in municipal decision-making.
Public Health Concern:
- Rising dog bite incidents leading to rabies risk, increased healthcare burden.
Legal & Ethical Balancing:
- Balancing Article 21 (Right to Life & Safety) for humans with animal welfare under the PCA Act and constitutional principles (Article 51A(g)).

NGOs:
- Concerned about feasibility — moving thousands of strays without shelter capacity may worsen conditions.
- Fear ABC programs may halt completely if shelters become overfilled.
RWAs (Resident Welfare Associations):
- Welcome SC’s intent for safety but sceptical about timely execution.
- Demand accountability — “heads should roll” if order not implemented.
Civic Authorities (MCD):
- Acknowledge constraints but lack clear roadmap for large-scale shelter setup.
Public Sentiment:
- Divided — some advocate immediate removal for safety; others demand humane treatment and gradual relocation.

Absence of Urban Animal Welfare Planning:
- No integrated Urban Animal Management Policy in Delhi.
Data & Tracking Gaps:
- No real-time stray dog census; reliance on estimates.
Coordination Failure:
- Poor coordination between MCD, NGOs, and Delhi Government.
Judicial Overreach Debate:
- Experts question if courts should mandate operational timelines without ensuring feasibility.

International Examples:
- Turkey: Large-scale municipal shelters, mandatory registration, microchipping.
- Romania: State-funded sterilisation & adoption drives.
- Singapore: Strict licensing, penalties for abandonment, high adoption rates.
Learning for India:
- Need for sustained municipal funding, community adoption incentives, and strict abandonment laws.

Infrastructure Creation:
- Build regional shelters with modern facilities; integrate veterinary services and adoption centres.
Strengthening ABC Programs:
- Increase sterilisation targets with mobile veterinary units.
Public Participation:
- Incentivise adoption; promote responsible pet ownership.
Legislative Strengthening:
- Amend PCA Act for stronger penalties on abandonment.
Data-Driven Action:
- Conduct annual stray dog census for planning and monitoring.
Balanced Approach:
- Phase-wise relocation, combining sterilisation, vaccination, and adoption — avoiding mass capture without capacity.