The Supreme Court of India issued a suo motu order on August 11, 2025, requiring the removal of stray dogs from all localities within Delhi-NCR.
The National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi is currently grappling with an escalating human-dog conflict, marked by a concerning rise in dog bite incidents and persistent fears of rabies transmission. With over 37 lakh dog bite cases reported in India in 2024 according to the National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), the issue has gained attention from policymakers, courts, and civil society.
This situation is set against a backdrop of complex animal welfare considerations, creating a multifaceted challenge for urban governance. In response to this pressing issue, the Supreme Court of India issued a suo motu directive in August 2025, mandating the immediate removal and permanent sheltering of stray dogs from Delhi-NCR streets.
Overview of Stray Dogs Menace
India houses 1.5 crore stray dogs according to the 2019 livestock census, creating an interface between human and canine populations in India. The National Crime Records Bureau data reveals 4,146 cases of dog bites leading to human deaths in 2019, while Delhi recorded 35,198 animal bite incidents between January and June 2025.
These statistics represent a challenge encompassing public health concerns, urban planning issues, and questions of resource allocation. The economic burden extends beyond medical costs, with post-exposure prophylaxis for rabies averaging ₹5,128 per case, creating financial strain on families and healthcare systems.
The distribution of this challenge varies across urban, semi-urban, and rural areas, with regions experiencing degrees of human-dog conflict based on local conditions, infrastructure, and community dynamics.
Provisions regarding Stray Dogs in India
Constitution: Article 243W mandates municipalities for prevention of cruelty to animals while Article 51A(g) places a fundamental duty on citizens “to have compassion for living creatures”
Rules: Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 seek to control stray dog populations through sterilisation, and to curb the spread of rabies by vaccination. Rules address feeding of community animals by assigning responsibility to the Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs), or Local Bodies.
Court Judgements: Supreme Court, in Jallikattu Case 2014, has interpreted the right to life and liberty (Article 21) as extending to animals as well.
The Supreme Court's observations about balancing animal protection with citizen concerns reflect the judiciary's recognition of competing interests that require consideration.
Key Stakeholders and their interest
Residents
- Community attitudes range from supportive to hostile, often shaped by personal experiences with aggressive dogs or dog attacks.
- Residents may face safety risks, property damage, and health concerns.
- Children, elderly etc. face disproportionate risks from stray dog encounters due to their inability to assess danger or defend themselves effectively.
Animal Welfare Organizations
- Advocate for rights-based approaches to stray dog management, emphasizing community-based care models, sterilization, vaccination, and feeding programs while opposing culling.
- Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) has published the revised Animal Birth Control (ABC) module for Street Dogs Population management, rabies eradication and reducing man-dog conflict.
Pet Owners
- Pet abandonment is a factor that contributes to this problem.
- They may also offer solutions through responsible pet ownership and support for stray management programs.
Government and its Agencies
- Municipal Authorities: Bear constitutional responsibility under Article 243W and 246, to manage stray populations, and Effective implementation of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960.
- National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare is implementing all necessary activities for rabies elimination in India by 2030.
- Each stakeholder ministry/department has a defined role and set of responsibilities for rabies elimination under the National Action Plan for Dog-Mediated Rabies Elimination by 2030 (NAPRE).
Ethical Dimensions in Stray Dog Management
Moral Philosophy Perspectives
The stray dog management debate involves questions of moral philosophy that extend beyond considerations. Ethical frameworks offer approaches to resolving conflicts between human and animal interests.
Utilitarian approaches focus on maximizing welfare and minimizing suffering for the number. This perspective might support interventions that reduce harm, whether to humans or animals, based on outcomes rather than principles.
Deontological frameworks emphasize duties and rights regardless of consequences. This approach considers obligations toward both human safety and animal welfare as imperatives that cannot be compromised.
Virtue ethics examines the character traits and virtues that should guide decision-making, such as compassion, responsibility, and prudence in balancing competing interests.
Moral Dilemmas in Policy Implementation
Compassion versus Safety: The obligation to show kindness toward animals exists alongside duties to protect human welfare, for children and elderly individuals who face risks.
Individual versus Collective Rights: Balancing animal welfare against community safety requires weighing harms against benefits, raising questions about trade-offs in policy design.
Responsibility and Moral Agency
The question of responsibility spans actors in the stray dog management ecosystem. Pet owners bear responsibility for their animals' welfare and preventing abandonment. Communities share responsibility for treatment of animals in their midst. Government agencies have obligations to protect both public health and animal welfare within legal frameworks.
This responsibility creates challenges in accountability and coordination, as actors may prioritize considerations based on their roles and perspectives.
Scientific Evidence and International Perspectives
Experience provides insights into stray dog management strategies. Netherlands achieved stray-dog-free status through approaches combining sterilization programs, ownership legislation, and shifts in human-animal relationships.
Bhutan's 14-year CNVR program addressed its stray dog population through interventions. Thailand's programs in Greater Bangkok demonstrated reductions in both dog populations and rabies cases.
Scientific literature documents the "vacuum effect," where removal of animals from environments leads to repopulation from areas. This principle has implications for policy design and effectiveness of management approaches.
Economic Dimensions and Resource Allocation
Comparative Cost Analysis
Management approaches present economic implications. Animal Birth Control programs involve costs of ₹1,000 per dog, while sheltering requires expenses of ₹2,500 per animal.
Infrastructure development for sheltering involves investments, with estimates reaching ₹15,000 crore for facilities. These figures raise questions about resource allocation and cost-effectiveness of strategies.
Healthcare System Impact
Dog bite incidents place burdens on healthcare infrastructure. Treatment, post-exposure prophylaxis, and follow-up care require medical resources. Prevention through population management and vaccination programs may offer economic outcomes.
Way Forward
Stray dog management requires coordination among government agencies, animal welfare organizations, veterinary professionals, and community representatives.
Policy decisions should incorporate scientific evidence, practices, and local factors. Assessment and adaptation based on outcomes data can improve program effectiveness over time. Sustainability requires funding mechanisms that can support programs over periods. Public-private partnerships and financing approaches may offer solutions.
Technology and Innovation in Management
Modern Approaches
Technologies offer possibilities for stray dog management, including population monitoring systems, vaccination tracking, and community reporting platforms. GPS-based tracking and data analytics can improve program efficiency and outcomes measurement.
Applications for bite reporting, veterinary service access, and community coordination represent tools that can enhance management approaches.
Community Dynamics and Social Factors
Implementation of any management strategy requires community cooperation and acceptance. Resistance from community groups can undermine program effectiveness regardless of policy intent.
Building consensus among stakeholders with priorities and perspectives requires engagement and problem-solving approaches.
Conclusion
Managing stray dogs is a complex challenge that needs a multi-pronged approach. A successful strategy must consider the many interconnected factors at play, including public health, animal welfare, legal policies, and economic and logistical limitations.
The core idea is to protect public health while ensuring animal welfare, respecting legal obligations, optimizing resource utilization, and building community consensus.
Master Digital Age Governance & Technology Trends with VisionIAS Comprehensive Current Affairs →
Visit the Mains Corner and elevate your UPSC Mains 2025 preparation.
Stray Dog Management in India FAQs
1. What did the Supreme Court order for Delhi stray dogs in 2025?
Ans. Immediate removal and permanent sheltering from Delhi-NCR streets.
2. Who is responsible for stray dog management under Indian law?
Ans Municipal authorities under Article 243W and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960.
3. How many dog bite cases reported in India 2024?
Ans. Over 37 lakh cases reported by the National Centre for Disease Control.
4. What is the vacuum effect in stray dog management?
Ans. Repopulation from surrounding areas after removal of animals.
5. What is the CNVR program for stray dogs?
Ans. Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release program for population control.