On Monday, the Supreme Court directed the local authorities to move stray dogs from residential areas to shelters in response to rising reports of aggressive dog attacks and the health risks associated with rabies. The court’s ruling followed multiple incidents across Delhi-NCR, where dog bites have surged, and residents voiced their fears over the safety of children and the elderly. The move was seen as an urgent measure to address what some have described as a growing public health crisis.
However, during a session this morning, Chief Justice Gavai was reminded of a previous ruling that strictly prohibits the killing or relocation of stray dogs under any circumstances unless the animals are deemed a direct threat. This earlier decision had emphasized the importance of adhering to animal welfare laws, which require proper protocols for managing stray dog populations. Legal experts and animal rights activists have been vocal in their opposition to the new directive, arguing that it violates existing laws and may lead to further complications.
Critics have raised concerns about the potential for inhumane treatment of stray dogs in shelters, which are often poorly equipped to handle large numbers of animals. These critics argue that simply removing dogs from the streets without addressing the root causes of the issue, such as unregulated breeding and inadequate animal control measures, is a short-term solution that fails to consider long-term impacts. They have also pointed out that the ban may unfairly punish the animals for the actions of a few, rather than focusing on finding more balanced and humane approaches.
The situation has drawn attention to the growing tensions between urban planning, public health, and animal welfare. Delhi-NCR, one of the most densely populated regions in India, has faced significant challenges in managing its stray dog population. The surge in incidents involving aggressive dogs has raised alarms, with residents calling for swift action to prevent further injuries. The fear of rabies, which has been linked to several fatalities in the region, has only intensified calls for stricter measures.
While the Supreme Court's ruling is a response to public pressure, it has also sparked a broader conversation about the role of courts in managing complex social issues such as animal control. Legal scholars have questioned whether the judiciary is the appropriate forum for addressing public health concerns, suggesting that such matters should be handled by the government and municipal bodies with expertise in public health and animal welfare.
At the same time, animal rights groups have called for greater enforcement of existing laws designed to protect stray dogs. They argue that the focus should be on improving the conditions of shelters, increasing the availability of sterilisation programs to reduce the stray dog population, and enhancing public education on responsible pet ownership. Many believe that a multi-pronged approach, including stricter enforcement of animal cruelty laws and better management of animal shelters, would be more effective in addressing the issue in a way that respects both public safety and animal rights.