India’s capital, New Delhi, and its neighboring cities are at the heart of a contentious new mandate: the Supreme Court of India has ordered the immediate removal of stray dogs from public spaces, directing authorities to capture, sterilize, and permanently relocate them to shelters. The sweeping order, issued on August 11, 2025, extends across the National Capital Region (NCR), including Gurugram, Noida, and Ghaziabad, and has ignited a heated public debate over public safety, animal welfare, and the practicalities of enforcement.
The Supreme Court’s directive was clear and uncompromising. Civic bodies were told to begin by capturing 5,000 stray dogs from “high-risk areas” within six to eight weeks, with plans to expand the effort to all neighborhoods. Shelters must be created to accommodate these animals, staffed with sufficient personnel for sterilization, vaccination, and day-to-day care, all under CCTV surveillance to ensure that no dog is released back onto the streets. The court also ordered the establishment of a 24-hour helpline for reporting dog bites, with a mandate that authorities act within four hours of any complaint. Additionally, officials must publicize the locations where anti-rabies vaccines are available and maintain records of both vaccine stocks and treatments administered each month.
While the court’s order cited public safety—especially the alarming number of dog bite incidents—as its primary motivation, the scale of the problem is daunting. According to hospital records, New Delhi alone sees nearly 2,000 dog bite incidents every day. Estimates of the city’s stray dog population vary wildly, from 60,000 in government surveys over a decade ago to as many as one million in recent years. The court described the situation as “extremely grim,” emphasizing, “Infants, young children should not at any cost fall prey to stray dogs.”
The bench, led by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, made it clear that compromise was not an option. “Society should be free from stray dogs. You shouldn’t find a single stray dog moving around anywhere in any locality of the city or outskirts. That’s the first step. Then we will decide what is the next step,” Justice Pardiwala declared, as reported by The Indian Express. The court rebuffed intervention from animal rights advocates, stating, “All intervention applications rejected. In the larger interest of the people, having regard to the grim situation prevailing, having regard to the manner in which young children, babies… have fallen prey to these dog bites, we would not like to hear anyone except the Solicitor General and amicus curiae.” The justices further warned that anyone obstructing the removal of stray dogs would face strict legal consequences.
The urgency of the court’s order is underscored by India’s grim statistics on rabies. The country accounts for more than a third of global rabies deaths, according to the World Health Organization. Rabies, transmitted through bites from infected animals, is almost always fatal if left untreated. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking before the court, noted, “Rabies has no cure in medicine and we have seen in YouTube videos, children dying and parents crying helplessly because the doctors also say we have no cure.”
Delhi state Cabinet Minister Kapil Mishra welcomed the order, declaring that it marked a step toward freeing New Delhi “from the fear of rabies and stray animals.” He added, “Special attention will also be given to the comprehensive welfare of stray animals,” promising that the government would begin the process of rounding up strays and ensuring their well-being in shelters.
Yet, the court’s order has triggered a fierce backlash from animal welfare groups, conservationists, and significant segments of the public. Conservation biologist Bahar Dutt called the move “impractical” and “unscientific,” questioning, “Where are the shelters to house thousands of dogs?” Vidit Sharma, founder of the animal welfare organization Save A Stray, echoed these concerns on social media: “We respectfully believe the focus should be on humane solutions for street dogs in Delhi — mass vaccination and sterilization — rather than removal.”
Online, the debate has been passionate and polarized. Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) largely welcomed the decision, citing concerns over safety and the right of children to play outside without fear. One social media user wrote, “No one should have to risk the life of their three year old child because someone somewhere is compassionate about stray dogs. It’s that simple.” Another, identifying as a dog lover, admitted, “If you’re unaware of the stray dog situation in Delhi NCR, ask those who work night shifts. I SUPPORT SC’s DECISION.”
In contrast, animal activists and some members of the public have condemned the ruling as a violation of animal welfare laws and basic compassion. One commentator argued, “The Supreme Court’s order on #straydogs not only lacks empathy but shows an ignorance of basic evolutionary biology.” Another lamented, “This judgment doesn’t just break laws, it breaks compassion. It violates the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, overrides animal welfare laws, and tramples the duties our Constitution asks of us. We owe our strays better.” Some have gone so far as to describe the order as a “death sentence” for Delhi’s stray dogs.
There are also practical concerns. Critics warn that civic bodies lack the land, funding, and infrastructure to carry out such a large-scale operation humanely. Without adequate facilities, they say, the plan could backfire, leading to overcrowded shelters, increased animal suffering, and even greater human-dog conflict. The court, however, has insisted that “no sentiments should be involved,” and that the action must inspire public confidence. “All these animal activists… will they be able to bring back those who have fallen prey to rabies?” the bench asked pointedly.
The legal landscape is also fraught. The Supreme Court’s order explicitly criticized the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, which require sterilized dogs to be returned to their original locations. Justice Pardiwala called this provision “absurd,” asking, “Why should that stray dog come back to that locality? For what? What’s the idea behind it?” Animal rights groups argue that the new order overrides not only these rules but also the more recent Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, and potentially violates constitutional protections for animals.
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court has demanded a status report from authorities on the implementation of its directions and will review progress after six weeks. The court’s stance is that only a society entirely free of stray dogs can guarantee the safety of its children and the public at large. Whether this ambitious goal can be achieved—and at what cost—remains to be seen.
The debate over Delhi’s stray dogs is far from settled. As authorities scramble to comply, the city’s residents, animal lovers, and policymakers are left to grapple with the complex question of how to balance public health, compassion, and practicality in one of the world’s most populous urban landscapes.
