India: Supreme Court of India Reverses Dog Policy
In a surprising reversal, the Indian Supreme Court has revised its earlier order, which had provided for the complete relocation of all stray dogs from Delhi and surrounding areas to animal shelters.
The dogs – provided they are sterilised and vaccinated – are now to be returned to their original neighbourhoods. Only dogs that are aggressive or show signs of rabies infection are excluded from the return.
On 11 August, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ordered the removal of all stray dogs, citing a wave of dog bites and rabies cases. However, this step met with massive protest: human rights groups, animal welfare advocates, prominent figures and politicians such as Rahul Gandhi criticised the decision as inhumane and impractical – particularly given the lack of adequately equipped animal shelters in Delhi.
The New Regulation in Detail
A three-judge bench of the court led by Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria has now adjusted the approach:
- Sterilisation and vaccination: Stray dogs may return to their original neighbourhoods after sterilisation and vaccination have been carried out.
- Exceptions: Aggressive or rabid animals are excluded from this provision and will be housed separately.
- Feeding stations: In addition, designated feeding stations are to be established, rather than allowing dogs to be fed indiscriminately on the streets, in order to reduce conflicts and hygiene risks.
- National guideline: The Supreme Court plans to issue a nationwide guideline for the uniform management of the issue of stray dogs.
Voices from the Public
Maneka Gandhi, a prominent animal welfare activist, praised the new approach as a “scientific decision” and at the same time urged that the term “aggressive” be clearly defined. PETA India also expressed relief and called on the public to adopt dogs and support sterilisation efforts.
At the political level, Priyanka Chaturvedi, for instance, criticized the original order as inhumane and welcomed the new, more balanced approach. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) also indicated its willingness to implement the order “with full force,” pointing to its existing ABC (Animal Birth Control) centers for carrying out the measures.
A tension between doctrine and practice
The debate highlights a structural problem: while the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules have long prescribed the procedure — sterilization, vaccination, and return to the original location — this practice has increasingly been criticized as inefficiently implemented and understaffed.
Animal welfare organizations see the current step as a return to scientifically grounded approaches — but also as a source of new uncertainties, particularly due to vague definitions and inadequate implementation at the municipal level.
Why the ruling matters now
- Public health: In Delhi alone, approximately 49 rabies cases were recorded between January and July 2025, with an estimated 2’000 dog bite incidents occurring daily — often involving children.
- Animal welfare: Sterilization and return follow modern, ethical principles and avoid the suffering and overcrowding of shelters.
- Administration: The directive to establish feeding stations and to promote cooperation between authorities and NGOs aims at a coordinated implementation.
With its ruling of 22 August 2025, the Supreme Court of India made an attempt to reconcile the tension between public safety and animal welfare . The focus is now on a scientifically grounded, decentralized solution rather than broad displacement. Whether this balancing act proves sustainable in the long term depends largely on clear definitions, rigorous implementation, and sufficient resources for municipal measures.
