Supreme Court Verdict on Stray Dogs in the National Capital Region (NCR)

The Supreme Court has ordered authorities in Delhi, Noida, Gurgaon, and Ghaziabad to permanently capture stray dogs and move them to shelters. The move aims to prevent rabies and ensure public safety, especially for children.

• GS-II: Role of judiciary, governance, urban local bodies.
• GS-III: Public health, zoonotic diseases, rabies control.
• Constitution: Articles 21, 243W, 51A(g) relevance.
• Judgments: Key SC cases on animal rights and public safety.
• Ethics (GS-IV): Humane treatment of animals vs. human safety dilemma.

India has over 60 million stray dogs, and on average, a dog bite occurs every 10 seconds. Dogs are the primary carriers of rabies, a viral disease that can be prevented through vaccination. While dogs are often seen as companions, the large stray population has created serious public health and safety issues.

• India accounts for 36% of the world’s rabies deaths.
• On average, 20,000 dog bite incidents happen every day in India. Out of these, nearly 2,000 cases occur in Delhi alone.

The SC has expressed concern over these alarming figures, stressing the need for stronger policies and better management of stray dogs to protect people from attacks and rabies.

In its recent order, the Supreme Court issued strict directives to control the stray dog menace in the Delhi-NCR region. Here are the key details from the verdict:

• Immediate action: Authorities must start picking up stray dogs without delay, even by creating a special force if required.
• Zero tolerance for obstruction: The Court warned that strict action would be taken against individuals or organisations resisting this exercise.
• Shelter creation: Dog shelters or pounds for around 5,000 dogs must be set up within eight weeks.
• Health and care measures: These shelters must have staff to sterilise, deworm, and vaccinate dogs, along with proper care facilities.
• No release back to streets: Once captured, dogs cannot be sent back.
• Monitoring: All shelters will be under CCTV surveillance to ensure proper detention and transparency.

With the recent issue in perspective, let us now look at the constitutional and judicial framework governing stray dogs in India.

The issue of stray dogs in India is not only about public health; it is also deeply connected with constitutional duties, animal rights, and judicial interpretations. To balance public safety with compassion for animals, several laws and judgments guide how stray dogs are to be treated.

1. Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023

• Framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
• To control the stray dog population through sterilisation and curb the spread of rabies through vaccination.
• Emphasises humane management of stray dogs instead of mass culling.

2. Constitutional Provisions

• Article 243W: Places responsibility on municipalities to manage and control stray dog populations.
• Article 51A(g): Fundamental duty of every citizen “to have compassion for living creatures.”
• Together, these provisions highlight that citizens and local governments share responsibility in addressing the stray dog problem.

3. Judicial Interpretations

The Supreme Court has played a critical role in shaping policies on stray dogs by extending the ambit of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) to animals as well.

Also read: Supreme Court's Verdict on Electoral Bonds Scheme: UPSC Notes

The Supreme Court has given clear orders to control the stray dog problem, but putting these directions into practice comes with many challenges.

1. Infrastructure Gaps

• Creating shelters for 5,000 dogs within eight weeks is a huge task.
• Most cities lack adequate facilities, trained personnel, and veterinary infrastructure.

2. Financial Burden

• Setting up shelters, hiring staff, and providing long-term care require large funds.
• Many urban local bodies may not have enough budget to meet these expenses.

3. Manpower and Coordination

• Managing large-scale sterilisation and vaccination drives demands skilled manpower.
• Coordination between municipalities, veterinary services, and law enforcement often remains weak.

4. Monitoring and Accountability

• The Court has asked for shelters to be monitored through CCTV cameras.
• Regular audits and preventing misuse or neglect at these shelters remain difficult.

5. Public Resistance

• Animal rights groups may oppose the permanent detention of dogs, citing cruelty.
• On the other hand, citizens demand immediate removal due to safety concerns.
• Striking a balance between compassion and public safety is a continuous challenge.

6. Long-Term Sustainability

• Capturing and sheltering dogs alone cannot solve the problem.
• Without sustained sterilisation, vaccination, and awareness campaigns, stray dog numbers may rise again.

Must cover this important topic: What is Nipah Virus: Everything You Need to Know

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” – Mahatma Gandhi

The Supreme Court’s verdict highlights both the urgency of protecting citizens from the rising stray dog menace with the responsibility to treat animals with dignity. A sustainable solution requires coordinated efforts between governments, local bodies, and communities.

• Build well-equipped shelters with veterinary care.
• Ensure large-scale sterilisation and vaccination drives.
• Involve RWAs, NGOs, and citizens in awareness and adoption. 
• Regular audits of shelters and strict monitoring mechanisms.
• Protect human lives while ensuring humane treatment of animals.

Unlock your UPSC Success with SuperKalam!

Get instant doubt clearance, customised study plans, unlimited MCQ practice, and fast Mains answer feedback. 

Explore SuperKalam's Resources and set yourself on the path to success!

Download the SuperKalam App now: SuperKalam Crack UPSC IAS