Rethinking Stray Dog Welfare in India

The omnipresence of stray dogs in India epitomizes one of the most persistent dilemmas of modern urban governance. They inhabit village lanes, metropolitan avenues, and semi-urban peripheries, forming an inescapable component of India’s socio-ecological fabric. The ubiquitous presence of stray dogs across India has engendered a complex debate at the intersection of public health, jurisprudence, and animal ethics. On one hand, these canines are regarded as sentient co-inhabitants of the urban commons; on the other, they are perceived as potential vectors of zoonotic diseases and public nuisance.

India, as a signatory to international animal welfare conventions, must harmonize anthropocentric imperatives of safety with the zoocentric recognition of animal rights enshrined within the constitutional and statutory framework of India.

Legal and Welfare Framework

Stray dog welfare in India is protected by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 and 2023. These laws require humane care, sterilization, and vaccination, while banning mass killing or relocation (except for incurable diseases). Municipal bodies must run Animal Birth Control programs, where dogs are sterilized, vaccinated against rabies, and then released back. This makes humane, scientific measures the only legal way to manage stray dog populations.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence

The Indian Supreme Court has, over the last decade, consistently articulated a juridical philosophy of coexistence:

Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja (2014): The Court recognized that animals are “sentient beings” endowed with the intrinsic right to live with dignity, thereby expanding the ambit of Article 21 beyond the human species.

Subsequent Orders (2015–2023):

• Prohibited the indiscriminate extermination of stray dogs by municipal authorities.
• Upheld the legitimacy of sterilization–vaccination–release as the sole legally permissible mechanism of population control.
• Affirmed that feeding stray dogs is not ipso facto illegal, though it must be undertaken in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of other citizens.
• Directed States to demarcate feeding zones, establish grievance redressal mechanisms, and ensure that urban governance harmonizes compassion with public order.

Through these pronouncements, the Court has entrenched a doctrinal balance between animal rights jurisprudence and human safety imperatives.

Challenges on the Ground

Despite judicial clarity, the praxis of implementation remains fraught with challenges –

Institutional Deficits

Municipal corporations often lack adequate veterinary infrastructure, funding, and trained personnel.

Urban Anomie

Rapid urbanization and irresponsible pet abandonment exacerbate stray dog proliferation.

Societal Polarization

A widening schism persists between animal welfare activists and aggrieved residents, frequently erupting in litigation or vigilante action.

Public Health Concerns

Rabies continues to pose a serious epidemiological threat, aggravated by inconsistent vaccination drives.

Learnings From Across the Globe

Experiences from other countries underscore the universality of this dilemma –

• Sri Lanka: Achieved a drastic reduction in rabies through nationwide sterilization and vaccination campaigns, proving extermination counterproductive.
• Thailand: Deployed large-scale sterilization and foster programs, stabilizing stray populations in urban Bangkok.
• Europe: Nations like Romania initially practiced culling but later shifted to community adoption and sterilization, aligning with EU animal welfare standards.

These models affirm that compassionate science, not violence, produces sustainable outcomes.

Best Practices and Way Forward

To translate judicial dicta into lived reality, India must adopt a multi-pronged, evidence-based strategy

Robust ABC Implementation

Universal sterilization and mass rabies vaccination must be institutionalized through public-private partnerships, with stringent monitoring mechanisms.

• Designated Feeding Protocols

Establishing scientifically demarcated feeding zones would mitigate social frictions while ensuring the nutritional welfare of strays.

• Awareness and Sensitization

Public campaigns should disseminate knowledge regarding canine behaviour, bite management, and responsible pet ownership.

• Promotion of Native Breeds

Encouraging the adoption of Indian pariah dogs can simultaneously reduce the street dog population and valorize indigenous resilience.

• Institutional Synergy

Synergistic collaboration among municipal authorities, veterinary councils, and civil society organizations is imperative for sustainable outcomes.

• Legal Literacy

Disseminating knowledge of Supreme Court rulings at the grassroots level will prevent both unlawful culling and unregulated feeding.

Stray dog laws in India are not just about animals — they reflect our culture of living in harmony. The Supreme Court has suggested a balanced approach: sterilization, vaccination, responsible feeding, and public cooperation. But to make this work, we need strong political will, efficient administration, and compassion from society. Stray dogs are not enemies to be killed or problems to be ignored; they are part of our shared world, and how we treat them reflects our values. Examples from Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Europe show that humane, scientific solutions work better than killing.

(Dr Rahul Dev – Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jammu)