New Delhi, August 22, 2025 — After sparking intense national debate and triggering street protests across the country, India’s Supreme Court has significantly revised its earlier directive regarding the treatment of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR. The apex court has now emphasized a scientific and humane approach: stray dogs that are not aggressive or rabid must be sterilised, vaccinated, and returned to their territories, while only dangerous animals will be held in shelters.

The change comes 11 days after an earlier court order that called for the removal of all strays from public areas and their confinement in shelters, a move that was widely criticized as both impractical and inhumane.

Backlash from Citizens and Activists Sparks Reconsideration

The original order, issued on August 11, was prompted by rising public concern over increasing dog bite incidents, particularly in urban areas like Delhi. The court had directed municipal bodies to capture and confine all stray dogs, a move it claimed would reduce public health risks, particularly the threat of rabies.

But the decision sparked a swift backlash.

Animal welfare organizations, legal experts, public health researchers, and ordinary citizens accused the court of ignoring both established policy and the biological realities of canine behavior. Demonstrations erupted across several states, with protesters holding placards reading “Justice for Strays”, “Sterilise, Don’t Slaughter”, and “Respect ABC Rules”. Social media campaigns gained traction under hashtags like #SaveOurStrays and #JusticeForCommunityDogs.

Prominent animal rights advocate Maneka Gandhi called the earlier order “unconstitutional and anti-scientific,” and a “death sentence in disguise” for millions of dogs.

Revised Order Respects ABC Policy

In the revised ruling issued today, the Supreme Court walked back the mass removal directive. The new order aligns with India’s Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which mandate that stray dogs be:

• Sterilised
• Vaccinated
• Returned to the exact location they were picked up from (if not aggressive)

Aggressive or rabid dogs, the court clarified, can still be held in shelters, but under strict veterinary assessment and humane conditions. The court emphasized that dogs cannot be arbitrarily labeled dangerous—a medical or behavioral evaluation is mandatory.

A Shift Toward National Policy Standardisation

In a significant expansion of the issue, the bench also called for the development of a uniform national policy to manage stray dogs. It directed the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) to collaborate with state governments to create clear, enforceable guidelines for sterilisation drives, public feeding, and the management of aggressive animals.

The court remarked:

“This is not a local problem. A national framework is the need of the hour, based on science, compassion, and law.”

Feeding Zones to Be Regulated

As part of the ruling, the court also instructed municipal corporations to establish designated feeding zones for stray dogs. This step is designed to prevent territorial conflicts among animals, reduce risks to pedestrians, and streamline public interaction with community dogs.

Feeding in non-designated areas—especially near schools, hospitals, and markets—may be discouraged or penalized under municipal bylaws.

This has received mixed responses. Some activists worry it will alienate dog feeders and make survival harder for strays. Others, however, see it as a step toward safer, more organised urban ecosystems.

Why the Earlier Order Failed

The August 11 order had come under fire for several key reasons:

• Lack of Shelter Infrastructure: With an estimated 52.5 million stray dogs in India—and roughly 1 million in Delhi-NCR alone—the shelter system was simply not equipped to house them all.
• Legal Contradiction: The order conflicted with both the ABC Rules and several High Court rulings protecting the rights of community animals.
• Public Sentiment: Thousands of citizens voiced concern about the emotional, social, and ecological role of community dogs, who often act as informal guards and companions.

Health experts also pointed out that forcibly relocating vaccinated dogs could cause territorial gaps, potentially filled by unvaccinated animals—thus increasing the risk of rabies, rather than reducing it.

Mixed Reactions Across the Country

The new ruling has drawn praise from many quarters. PETA India called it “a wise and necessary correction.” NGOs such as Friendicoes and Blue Cross of India offered to assist local governments in implementing sterilisation and vaccination at scale.

However, some citizens—particularly those in neighborhoods heavily affected by stray dog attacks—remain skeptical.

Ravi Malhotra, a resident of Rohini (Delhi), said:

“We’ve seen kids bitten, people chased. We don’t hate dogs, but safety must come first. Who will guarantee aggressive dogs aren’t put back on our streets?”

Veterinary experts say education and transparency are crucial. Dr. Meenakshi Sharma, a senior vet and animal behaviorist, explained:

“Most dog bites happen due to human provocation or poor understanding of animal behavior. With community education, sterilisation, and vaccinations, aggression drops significantly.”

Implementation Will Be the Key

The Supreme Court’s revised order is being hailed as a humane middle path—but successful implementation will be critical.

Municipal bodies must now:

• Ramp up sterilisation and vaccination facilities
• Train dog catchers and feeders
• Coordinate with NGOs
• Clearly define aggression standards with veterinary input

There are concerns about manpower shortages, funding constraints, and accountability mechanisms—all of which must be addressed if the policy is to succeed.

Conclusion: From Confrontation to Coexistence

India’s stray dog issue sits at the intersection of public health, animal rights, legal precedent, and urban planning. The Supreme Court’s updated approach recognizes that complexity. Rather than criminalising the presence of stray dogs or dismissing citizen safety concerns, it promotes a balanced, legally grounded and scientifically supported strategy.