Stray Dog Ruling: Can Municipal Bodies Ensure Compassionate Implementation?

Stray Dogs Case: A Question of Implementing SC Order with ‘Compassion’ and Without Inflicting ‘Unnecessary Pain’

New Delhi, November 8, 2025 —
The Supreme Court’s latest directive to municipal authorities to “remove” stray dogs from public spaces and shift them to shelters for sterilisation and vaccination has reignited debate on how such orders should be implemented — with compassion, adequate infrastructure, and adherence to animal welfare laws.

The bench, while hearing a series of petitions concerning the rising number of stray dog attacks and public safety concerns, on Friday (November 7) asked civic bodies across the country to ensure that stray dogs are caught, vaccinated, and sterilised in a coordinated manner.

However, animal welfare groups and legal experts have pointed out that the order does not address whether most local authorities actually have the facilities, space, or trained personnel to carry out such measures humanely.

Balancing Safety and Compassion

The directive comes at a time when cities across India are struggling to manage stray dog populations amid rising cases of bites and attacks. While the court’s order seeks to protect citizens, it has also raised concerns about the ethical treatment of animals during mass removal operations.

Under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, every citizen has a fundamental duty to show compassion for living creatures. Likewise, Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 mandates that anyone responsible for animals must ensure their welfare and prevent unnecessary pain or suffering.

Legal experts say the challenge lies in striking a balance between public safety and animal rights. “The intent of the Supreme Court is clear — control stray population through sterilisation, not extermination,” said an animal rights lawyer. “But implementation must be humane, transparent, and compliant with the law.”

Infrastructure Concerns

Many municipalities across the country face a shortage of animal shelters, veterinary staff, and sterilisation facilities. Activists warn that without proper infrastructure, large-scale removal could lead to overcrowded shelters, poor conditions, and even mistreatment of animals.

An animal welfare organization spokesperson said, “The goal should be to protect both humans and animals. We need well-equipped shelters, mobile sterilisation units, and trained handlers — not panic-driven roundups.”

Need for Guidelines

Experts are urging the central and state governments to issue clear operational guidelines to ensure the Supreme Court’s order is implemented effectively and compassionately. Suggestions include mandatory supervision by veterinary officers, coordination with NGOs, and community awareness programs about sterilisation drives.

Some also advocate for creating “humane zones” — designated areas where vaccinated and sterilised dogs can live safely without posing risks to the public.

Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court is expected to review the progress of its directions in upcoming hearings. Meanwhile, animal rights groups plan to submit reports and proposals to help civic bodies implement the directive while respecting both human safety and animal welfare.