Today’s nations and societies, with their massive challenges — social, political, environmental and technological — have to be governed by a scientific temper and compassion. Unfortunately, the SC order of August 11 on stray dogs in the NCR lacks both. By directing that ALL strays should be rounded up and housed in dog shelters, the judges have mandated a quick-fix not based on science and one that ignores practical realities. It is not in the spirit of Article 51A(G) of the Constitution, which enjoins compassion for all living beings. It is also contradictory to an existing law — the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules of 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act — since these Rules have not specifically been quashed by the ibid order. These rules lay down in detail how stray dogs are to be vaccinated, sterilised, medically treated and released back into their old localities. The rules are based on science, experience, compassion and practicality. In contrast, the order of the SC is a quick-fix, perhaps based on personal predictions, and issued without hearing any stakeholder.

Apparently, the impulse behind this order is the incidences of dog bites and rabies. These, indeed, are important issues, but the solution does not lie in throwing the baby out with the bath water. Firstly, not all rabies cases are caused by dog bites — other culprits include rodents and monkeys, especially in rural India. Secondly, figures by the NCDC (National Centre for Disease Control) indicate that rabies has been showing a declining trend since 2019. Thirdly, the answer to dog bite-induced rabies is vaccination and not culling of dogs, which is what the practical implications of the SC order amount to.

There are an estimated 10 lakh stray dogs in Delhi alone. The MCD has no dog shelters, there are just a few run by under-funded NGOs. Has the SC even considered the impossibility of the MCD creating shelters for a million dogs? According to animal rights activist Ambika Shukla, it will cost a minimum of Rs 3,000 per dog per month to house a dog, including diet, manpower, medicines, etc. That means a budget of Rs 3600 crore would be needed every year to implement the SC order. Is that even within the realm of possibility? Without these funds, the dogs would be packed like sardines in a can, denied food, become diseased and would eventually kill each other or have to be euthanised. This would be institutionalised and legally mandated cruelty, which should shock anyone’s conscience.

Street dogsmake wonderful pets, are preferable to pedigreed breeds on maintenance and medical costs and utterly loyal. (I myself have a 5-year-old Indie, picked up as a two-week pup from a Gurgaon road!)

All the deficiencies and heartlessness of the SC order stem from a complete lack of consultation with those who are better informed, and work, in this field — animal activists, NGOs, vets, agencies like NCDC, pet owner associations and RWAs. Had the court not been in such a hurry to pass this order, it would have learnt, or been informed, of other related issues that have a bearing on this matter: how the problem of strays is compounded by many pet owners simply abandoning their pets on the roads (these, having no fear of us, can be more dangerous than the genuine strays); why it makes more sense for the government to assist and fund NGOs working in this field to establish shelters rather than to take on the responsibility itself; that most street dogs are not, in fact, strays, but “community dogs" who are well looked after by communities and animal lovers groups: in my own RWA in Noida, at least a dozen such dogs are cared for by the residents — they are wonderful to watch, happily greet our children when they get off the school buses, accompany us elders on our morning walks and are no threat at all. If only the judges had invited wider inputs, they would perhaps have seen this whole issue other than through the prism of dog bites and rabies.

Street dogs are the creation of man and have become an issue because of the incompetence, lack of vision and apathy of our municipal administrations. The risks posed by them are highly exaggerated and the judicial solution proposed is unscientific, cruel, impractical and is bound to fail. It is still not too late for the court to hold wider consultations (rather than shut out the animal activists completely) and arrive at a solution that is just, humane and has a chance of succeeding. But most important – remember, a society that can’t protect its voiceless is a society that has lost its soul.