By Satyabrat Borah
In the bustling streets of India’s urban landscapes, stray dogs have long been a fixture, embodying both the warmth of community care and the harsh realities of public health challenges. Recent interventions by the Supreme Court of India have thrust this issue into the national spotlight, particularly through a series of orders that grapple with the delicate balance between compassion for these animals and the imperative to protect human lives. The phrase “practising compassion: On the stray dogs issue, Court order” encapsulates the essence of this ongoing discourse, highlighting how judicial directives are urging society to adopt a humane yet pragmatic approach to managing stray populations. This article delves into the evolution of these court orders, the underlying tensions, and the broader implications for animal welfare and public safety in India.
The story begins with a growing concern over the stray dog population in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), including areas like Noida, Gurugram, and Ghadabad. India is home to an estimated 52.5 million stray dogs, with Delhi alone harboring around one million, according to surveys and municipal estimates. These animals, often referred to as “community dogs,” roam freely, scavenging for food and sometimes forming packs that lead to conflicts with residents. The World Health Organization notes that India accounts for 36 percent of global rabies deaths, with stray dog bites being the primary vector. In 2024, over 3.7 million dog bite cases were reported nationwide, escalating to more than 430,000 in just the first month of 2025. Tragic incidents, such as children and the elderly being mauled, have underscored the urgency, prompting the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance on July 28, 2025, based on a disturbing news report titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” from the Times of India.
On August 11, 2025, a two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued a landmark order directing municipal authorities in Delhi and NCR to immediately capture all stray dogs and relocate them to dedicated shelters within eight weeks. The directive was unequivocal: these dogs were not to be released back into public spaces. The court mandated the creation of shelters with capacity for at least 5,000 dogs initially, equipped with personnel for sterilization, immunization, and constant CCTV surveillance. Justice Pardiwala emphasized the “extremely grim” situation, stating that infants and young children should not fall prey to rabies and that the action was essential to inspire public confidence in safe movement. The bench dismissed the existing Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, as “absurd” and ineffective, arguing that releasing sterilized dogs back to their territories perpetuated the problem. It warned that any obstruction by individuals or organizations would invite contempt proceedings, prioritizing human safety under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.
This order marked a significant departure from previous judicial stances. The ABC Rules, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, classify stray dogs as “community animals” and prohibit their relocation, requiring instead that they be sterilized, vaccinated against rabies, and returned to their original habitats. Earlier Supreme Court rulings, such as the 2015 decision by Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, had stressed compliance with these rules to harmonize compassion for animals with human lives. In 2022, a three-judge bench upheld the right of citizens to feed stray dogs, reinforcing Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, which mandates fundamental duties to have compassion for living creatures. A May 9, 2024, order by Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol explicitly prohibited indiscriminate killings of canines, declaring compassion as an enshrined constitutional value that obligates authorities to act humanely.
The August 11 order, however, ignited a firestorm of controversy. Animal rights activists, NGOs like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, and the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations decried it as “impractical, illogical, and illegal.” They argued that Delhi lacked the infrastructure to house hundreds of thousands of dogs humanely, warning of overcrowding, disease outbreaks, and potential culling. Protests erupted across the country, from candlelight vigils at India Gate in Delhi to demonstrations in Mumbai and Bengaluru. Social media platforms buzzed with debates, with users sharing stories of peaceful human-dog interactions and criticizing the order as a violation of animal welfare laws. Prominent figures joined the chorus: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi called it a “step back from decades of humane, science-backed policy,” emphasizing that blanket removals were cruel and shortsighted, advocating instead for shelters, sterilization, vaccination, and community care. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Varun Gandhi, and Maneka Gandhi echoed concerns about compassion, while actor Rupali Ganguly, a vocal advocate, highlighted her personal efforts in sterilizing over 500 strays and urged empathy as a way of life.
On the other side, resident welfare associations (RWAs) and public safety advocates welcomed the directive. They pointed to the daily menace faced by night-shift workers, children, and the elderly, with CCTV footage from states like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra showing brutal attacks. Delhi Mayor Raja Iqbal Singh affirmed compliance, starting with aggressive dogs, while RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat called for population control. Echoing Mahatma Gandhi’s 1926 words in Young India, where he lambasted sentimentalism over stray dogs as a sign of societal ignorance, supporters argued that true ahimsa prioritizes preventing suffering for humans first. The Indian Express opined that the order ended a 25-year failed experiment with ABC rules, aligning with global models in the US and Europe that impound and euthanize unclaimed strays.
The backlash prompted swift judicial review. On August 12, an NGO filed an interlocutory application for recall, leading Chief Justice B.R. Gavai to reassign the matter to a larger three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria. During hearings on August 13 and 14, senior advocates like Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi argued that the order conflicted with prior rulings and the ABC Rules, putting the cart before the horse by ignoring shelter inadequacies. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered with statistics on 37 lakh annual dog bites, stressing public health. The bench reserved its order on August 14, refusing an interim stay but underscoring local authorities’ responsibility.
The climax came on August 22, 2025, when the three-judge bench modified the August 11 directive, deeming the blanket prohibition on release “too harsh.” Stray dogs are now to be captured, sterilized, dewormed, and immunized per ABC Rules, then released back to their original areas—except those infected with rabies or exhibiting aggressive behavior, which must be retained in shelters. The court banned street feeding to reduce conflicts, mandating designated feeding stations in every ward with notice boards warning of legal action for violations. It expanded the case’s scope nationwide, impleading all states and Union Territories, and transferred pending high court pleas to itself for a uniform policy after eight weeks. This revision was hailed as “balanced, structured, and compassionate” by activists like Alokparna Sengupta of Humane World for Animals India, though she called for scientific criteria to define “aggressive dogs” to prevent misuse.
This judicial arc exemplifies practising compassion in action. The initial order reflected frustration with ineffective policies, but the modification restored a humane equilibrium, acknowledging that compassion does not negate safety measures. It aligns with the 2014 Supreme Court judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, which enshrined the “five freedoms” for animals: freedom from hunger, discomfort, pain, fear, and to express natural behaviors. Yet, challenges persist. Implementation requires accurate censuses—the last nationwide stray count was in 2019, with Delhi’s in 2016—better waste management to deter scavenging, penalties for pet abandonment, and a strengthened veterinary cadre. The outdated Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act needs modernization to classify dogs as adoptable, shelter-bound, or unfit, with mandatory municipal standards.
Broader societal shifts are essential. Urban India must move beyond trading visible threats for invisible neglect. NGOs and citizens like Hemanshi Varma, who feeds and sterilizes strays daily, demonstrate that community involvement can bridge gaps. Political analyst Tehseen Poonawalla praised the verdict as humane, while comedian Vir Das urged behavioral training for integration. As Rahul Gandhi noted post-revision, it is a “progressive step” rooted in science, balancing welfare and safety.
The Supreme Court’s orders on the stray dogs issue serve as a poignant reminder that compassion is not passive sentiment but active responsibility. By mandating sterilization, vaccination, and regulated feeding while protecting vulnerable humans, the judiciary has practiced compassion effectively. For India, with its deep cultural reverence for animals, this framework offers a path forward: one where streets remain safer, dogs are treated with dignity, and society upholds its constitutional ethos. As protests turn to celebrations and policies evolve, the true test lies in execution,ensuring that words of empathy translate into deeds that honor all lives. Only then can we truly say we are practising compassion.
