The Supreme Court on Friday made a landmark ruling on the issue of stray dogs, amending its August 11 order on how stray animals were to be handled in Delhi and NCR. The Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan bench made it clear that stray dogs will be let out into the same area after vaccination and sterilisation except for those suffering from rabies or showing aggressive tendencies.
Major Directions from the Supreme Court
Stray dogs will have to be sterilised, dewormed, and immunised prior to release into the same area.
Dogs with rabies or aggressive tendencies will be held in separate animal shelters or kennels.
Publicly feeding stray dogs will be prohibited. As an alternative, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has been asked to establish the areas of feeding grounds in every ward.
Animal enthusiasts can approach the MCD for adoption of stray dogs.
NGOs and individuals who are part of the process have to deposit ₹25,000 (individuals) and ₹2 lakh (NGOs) with the registrar of the court.
No organisation or individual can stand in the way of municipal authorities while executing these orders.
Widening the Case Nationwide
The Supreme Court widened the scope of the case nationwide. It has:
Released letters to all Secretaries of Animal Husbandry Departments, states and Union Territories, requesting their reply regarding the formulation of a national policy on stray dogs.
Asked its Registry to gather information of all pending cases related to stray dogs from High Courts in India and transfer them to the supreme court for comprehensive hearing.
Justice Vikram Nath explained that all cases pertaining to stray dogs will now fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Relief for NGOs and Dog Feeders
Friday’s decision modified the previous August 11 order, which had directed the movement of stray dogs within eight weeks and prevented their release into municipalities. The previous directive had raised eyebrows among animal rights groups and NGOs. The new directive has been welcomed as a “balanced decision” by Supreme Court lawyer and petitioner Nanita Sharma, who stated the ruling satisfies both public safety and animal protection.
Why the Court Interfered?
The bench observed that authorities have weaved around taking any actionable steps towards addressing the problem of stray dogs and therefore public safety for over two decades. The bench stated that it was not a “passing whim” that produced this ruling and that the Court had considered the matter “considerately.” The Court stated that its directions are not intended to prioritise one automatically over the other, human safety over animal welfare, and they stated “this is not personal. The Court functions for the welfare of the people.”
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment attempts to find a mid-point providing sterilisation and inoculation of stray dogs, establishing orderly feeding areas, and banning unregulated feeding, while also broadening the ambit of the case to prepare a national-level policy. The stay in mass removal of stray dogs is a relief for animal activists and NGOs, and also gives priority to public safety.
Sofia Babu Chacko is a journalist with over five years of experience covering Indian politics, crime, human rights, gender issues, and stories about marginalized communities. She believes that every voice matters, and journalism has a vital role to play in amplifying those voices. Sofia is committed to creating impact and shedding light on stories that truly matter. Beyond her work in the newsroom, she is also a music enthusiast who enjoys singing.
