SC’s middle path on stray dogs

THE Supreme Court’s modified order on stray dogs offers a more balanced approach to a divisive issue. By overturning its earlier directive mandating the permanent relocation of all strays to shelters, the court on Friday chose compassion tempered with pragmatism. Sterilised and vaccinated dogs are to be released back into their localities, except those infected with rabies or exhibiting aggressive behaviour. This is significant. India reported nearly 37 lakh dog bites and over 50 suspected rabies deaths in 2024. These are figures that cannot be ignored. At the same time, the country lacks the infrastructure or resources to house millions of strays in shelters. The earlier order, though well-intentioned, would have been unworkable and inhumane.

The SC’s insistence on following the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules provides a realistic framework. Catch, neuter, vaccinate, release is globally accepted as the most effective way to control stray dog populations over time. But rules are only as good as their implementation. Municipal authorities now face the challenge of scaling up sterilisation drives, vaccinations and public awareness campaigns. Equally crucial is the SC’s ban on feeding strays in public spaces, with instructions to create designated feeding zones. This recognises both the concerns of residents — many of whom fear stray dog attacks — and the compassion of animal lovers. The civic bodies must act swiftly to set up such spaces, or the ban will only deepen tensions on the ground.

Yet, some grey areas remain. How will “aggressive” dogs be defined? Who decides, and what safeguards exist against misuse? Animal rights activists are justified in seeking clarity. Adoption, too, must not become a backdoor to abandonment when the responsibility becomes inconvenient. Ultimately, the ruling acknowledges that strays are part of our urban reality. A humane balance between public safety and animal welfare is not easy, but it is the only sustainable path forward.

Editorials