Stray Dogs and Society: Balancing Compassion, Safety, and Coexistence

Why Stray Dogs Divide India?

Never before has India seen protests of this scale over the fate of animals. On August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a sweeping order saying every street dog in the Delhi-NCR region must be rounded up and confined within eight weeks, and that no captured animal could be returned to the streets. The decree — intended, the court said, to address a mounting public-safety crisis — produced an immediate and ferocious backlash.

Within hours of the judgment, tens of thousands of people took to city streets, holding vigils and demonstrations that framed the ruling as an assault on basic compassion. “I am standing here just not to save the dogs of society but also standing up for animal cruelty,” said Dr. Anuja, an animal-rights activist, her voice raw with anger. “Where is the Supreme Court who has become so blindfolded that you can’t see the heinous crimes in society and you have got after the innocent beings of society.”

The court reached its decision after noting what it described as alarming bite statistics. In hearings, judges cited media accounts of children mauled in separate incidents and said that, on average, twenty thousand cases of dog bites are recorded across India every day — with two thousand incidents reported in Delhi alone. That sense of urgency, however, collided with a widespread belief among activists that the order was both impractical and needlessly punitive.

“We will fight till our last breath for our children,” said Muskan Jain, a protester who described the animals as members of the community. “The local authorities can’t even place a single bowl of water for animals or birds during the summers and they are talking about building numerous animal shelters. They want to take away the dogs and put them to sleep. This is their real intention and we will not let this happen.”

Activists argue the ruling ignores proven humane interventions — vaccination drives, community-based sterilization and public-education campaigns — that target the root causes of human animal conflict. “You can vaccinate the dogs,” Dr. Anuja said. “You can’t vaccinate the dogs and then you talk about opening up the shelters in society. What an irony is that?”

Even after the court later modified aspects of its original order, unease persists on the ground. The protests have crystallised a wider social split — between those who say decisive action is needed to protect citizens, and those who see the ruling as a disproportionate response that threatens the lives of stray dogs and the values many Indians attach to them. This is the first part of a two-part report examining how the decision has polarised communities — and what it could mean for animals and people alike.

Supreme Court Order Clashes with India’s Humane Framework for Stray Dogs

The Supreme Court’s August 11 directive appeared to overturn India’s carefully crafted Animal Birth Control Rules, which have long governed the treatment of street dogs. These rules mandate a humane system: animals are captured, sterilised, vaccinated against diseases like rabies, and then returned to the exact territories they came from. Confinement or mass removal, experts say, was never intended.

“The problem is that the local authorities since long have been misusing the term 'aggression'. They say we are picking up aggressive dogs from the streets but in reality what they are doing is, in the name of aggression they are also picking up calm and friendly community dogs,” said Karan Kanojia, a student and animal lover. 

Animal welfare caretakers warn that mass confinement is not only impractical but dangerous. “Dogs, if you try and put them all in very crowded circumstances it will lead to serious issues not just to those voiceless creatures but to also humans,” explained Roasie Virq, an animal welfare caretaker. “The August 11 verdict of the apex court was so impractical. We even met the Mayor, and he actually told us he cannot house 8 to 10 lakh dogs of Delhi and there was no way shelter could be provided to so many lakhs of dogs within a short span of time. Even if they were to do it, it will take many months to create the infrastructure. And do we actually have that much land in Delhi? If you wanted to care for them in a kind and humane manner, you would need hundreds of acres.” Virq also cautioned that crowded shelters could become breeding grounds for infectious diseases, which could in time spread to humans. 

Legal experts and animal lovers alike argue that the court’s decision also runs counter to the Constitution. Article 51A(g) places a duty on every citizen to protect the natural environment and show compassion for all living creatures. “Article 51A(g) says our Constitution allows coexistence within society,” said Sahil Kapoor, an animal lover. “The Constitution itself allows compassion towards all creatures of nature. Therefore, feeding or caring for animals is not wrong. Veterinary doctors have even warned that zoonotic diseases could spread if all dogs are captured and confined together.”

For activists and citizens who care for street dogs, the ruling has become a flashpoint — not just for legal debate, but for a broader discussion on coexistence, public health, and the ethics of animal welfare in India’s crowded cities.

Protests Expose Societal Divide Over Community Dogs

As the Supreme Court’s directive reverberated across the capital, society appeared sharply divided. On one side were people who saw street dogs as companions and guardians of their neighbourhoods; on the other, those who considered them a public nuisance. Few were willing to occupy the middle ground.

“The Supreme Court never said to capture the dogs without rules,” noted Leena Sharma Zaveri, an advocate closely following the case. “The court specifically mandated, even in their order dated August 11, that stray dogs should be captured in compliance with the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023. Thereafter, there was a modification that they would be released back to their territories after sterilization and vaccination. The first order was not a logical one and therefore it was modified in public interest. Whatever that confusion may be, we must also look at the larger picture. The authorities have historically misused ABC rules. We have seen umpteen number of cases of animal cruelty in the country. The Animal Welfare Board of India is often a mute spectator to the rising number of crimes against animals in India.”

Reports from the streets highlight the systemic failures the protests have brought into sharp relief. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), responsible for enforcing the ABC rules, lacks adequate shelters, facilities, or citizen engagement mechanisms. “MCD did not pick up any biting dogs from the street,” Zaveri said. “They do not have the facilities, the shelters, or any engagement with citizens. If I want to report a biting dog today, the media will cover it, but it is the municipal corporation’s duty under ABC rules to capture the dog and monitor for rabies. Pretexts about budgets and logistics cannot excuse non-compliance when Parliament has already passed laws with stakeholders in mind.”

Supreme Court Modifies Directive, but Controversy Continues Over Feeding and Care of Street Dogs

Following the protests, the Supreme Court revised its August 11 order on August 22, allowing community dogs to be released after sterilisation and vaccination. The amended directive also stated that dogs suspected of rabies or showing aggressive behaviour should be immunised and housed in shelters.

“First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the honourable Supreme Court for modifying the order,” said Mansirat Singh, a student and dog lover. “We can say we are satisfied, but the decision is not completely on our side — it’s partial justice. They said some feeding spots will be provided, and captured dogs will be released after sterilization. But it says you can only feed dogs in designated spots which is so wrong. They are voiceless beings. How can you stop people from feeding hungry animals?”

The Court in its latest order went a step further. It banned the feeding of community dogs in public spaces, directing instead that special feeding zones be created. The ban on feeding struck a raw nerve. For animal lovers, feeding wasn’t just charity — it was survival for the dogs, and a daily ritual of care. Overnight, that act of compassion was branded an offence in public spaces. Activists warned it would lead to starvation on the streets, while neighbourhoods themselves split apart — some demanding stricter controls, others defending the right to feed.

Most animal lovers said the flip-flop from the apex court has only increased tension within local communities, between those who love dogs and those who are against them. “I’m happy about the modified order, but we are yet to get justice,” said Himanshi Rao, a software engineer and dog advocate. “What was the point in all this? Instead of coming out with policies that can reduce human animal conflict, what we are seeing is so much confusion and misinformation being spread about community dogs. If the dog has rabies then I can understand that it has to be taken to a shelter. But all dogs cannot be branded as aggressive. No dog is aggressive by nature. Aggression develops only when they are mistreated. Treat them with love, and they are never aggressive. The court’s current stance undermines both the law and the Constitution, which allows people to feed and care for community dogs. Feeding poor animals cannot be made a crime.”

Delhi’s community dog population is estimated at nearly eight to ten lakh, a number that demands a framework rooted in science, compassion, and practicality — capture, sterilise, vaccinate, and release. While the Supreme Court has now provided partial relief, a sense of unease lingers. Everything depends on how local authorities implement the directives, and as part two of this series will reveal, cruelty in the name of control continues — often with the tacit sanction of the state.