Who let the dogs out!

In the days after the Supreme Court’s August 11, 2025 order directing Delhi–NCR authorities to pick up stray dogs and shift them to shelters, the protests have been loud and emotional. Looking at the rallies and social-media campaigns, it’s clear that more than two lakh passionate dog lovers exist in the region. That compassion is admirable. While there are an estimated 8 lakh stray dogs in Delhi–NCR; if each of those lovers adopted just two, half the problem would vanish overnight. This in no manner undermines the ones who open their homes to multiple street dogs, but there is still scope. The fact that this hasn’t happened shows the limits of sentiment as a policy tool.

The Court’s order is about public safety under Article 21, and it is both lawful and necessary.

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty — not in the abstract, but as a lived reality: safe streets, disease-free public spaces, freedom of movement without fear of being bitten. This is not an anti-dog position. It is a pro-human-life position that recognises dogs are not constitutional rights-bearers in the same way humans are.

The PCA Act forbids abandoning sick animals on streets and allows humane euthanasia for rabid dogs. Municipal laws penalise negligent handling of animals that endanger people. The Court has simply reminded civic bodies of their duty to enforce these provisions, which is significantly lacking resulting in today’s situation. The Bench expresses that it is only after the deepest of deliberations that they have reached the firm conclusion about the systematic failure of the concerned authorities over the past two decades to address an issue that strikes at the heart of public safety, which prompted the Bench to take the matter in their own hands.

The order does not call for killing dogs especially as the Bench inter alia records that “as a court, our heart pains equally for everyone. We condemn those who, beneath the cloak of 'love and care' for the voiceless, pursue the warmth of self-congratulation. The directions given by us, as a court which functions for the welfare of the people, are both in the interest of humans as well as dogs. This is not personal."

The Bench inter alia directs capture, sterilisation, vaccination, and housing in shelters with CCTV monitoring and penalties for obstruction. In doing so, it addresses not just rabies but the wider trauma of dog bites: the panic attacks, fear of going outdoors, and stress for parents, the elderly, and the disabled. Rabies kills, but even a non-rabid attack leaves scars, physical and psychological, that last for years.

One of us is petrified of dogs, another adores and has one at home, while our youngest co-author delights in playing with the local Indie on the street. Together, we understand both the fear and the joy they inspire. The debate is not about compassion for animals, it is about the unwillingness of some activists to acknowledge that public safety is an equally important concern.

A few years ago, before the Bombay High Court at Goa - we represented a 70-year-old dog grandparent and a resident of an upscale colony in Goa with over 70–80 street dogs. A “dog lover” fed them outside residents’ villas. The result? Packs roamed freely, sometimes entering balconies, intimidating children, and threatening elderly. Our solution was simple: identify one designated feeding and shelter area inside the colony. The court agreed.

Dogs are territorial; if trained and fed in one place, they will return to the said designated place daily and not wander aggressively through residential areas. This respects their dignity and the residents’ right to safety. That is precisely the balance the Supreme Court order now seeks — structured care, not chaos.

With compassion, even stray dogs can have a dignified life — proper food, vaccination, shelter, and protection from abuse. But compassion must be matched by responsibility. That means training pups early, ensuring sterilisation, and supporting civic authorities rather than obstructing them. NGOs and dog-loving citizens can and should play a constructive role in this: volunteer at shelters, help vaccinate, or sponsor adoptions. What they must avoid is aggression towards the very officials trying to enforce the law. Feeding dogs “anywhere and everywhere” is not compassion; it is negligence if it endangers others. Just as we leash and collar pet dogs, community dogs need regulated, safe spaces. This is not anti-animal — it is pro-order.

The backlash to this order has sometimes crossed into personal attacks on the judges. That is unacceptable. As Ram Jethmalani once said, “Judges are like gods; criticise their judgments, not the institution.” Our democracy depends on judicial independence. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MM Sundresh have both stressed that judges are “humble servants” of justice, not deities. The correct target of dissent is the reasoning of a judgment, not the dignity of the bench. Disagreeing is healthy; vilifying is corrosive. The current order can and should be debated, but personalising the debate undermines faith in the institution that ultimately safeguards everyone’s rights including those campaigning for dogs.

The scale of the dog-bite and rabies problem in Delhi–NCR is enormous and growing. Data from the Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (IDSP) shows that Delhi’s dog-bite cases jumped from 6,691 in 2022 to 17,874 in 2023 and 25,210 in 2024 – a 277% rise in two years. By mid-2025, hospitals were treating unprecedented loads: Delhi’s Safdarjung Hospital saw 91,009 bite cases by July 2025, i.e. over 430 cases each day and RML Hospital’s annual cases rose from 39,216 between April 2022 and March 2023 to 45,432 between April 2023 and March 2025 marking a 13% increase.

These bites have serious consequences. An ICMR study estimates roughly 5,700 human rabies deaths per year in India, about 95% attributable to dog bites. India thus bears roughly one-third of the global rabies burden.

The order demands that the State finally fulfil its obligations: build shelters, staff them, vaccinate and sterilise, keep streets safe. For years, the “catch-neuter-release” model has failed to control stray populations or reduce bite incidents. By insisting on removal from public spaces, the Court has acknowledged what residents already know.

Internationally, countries from Spain to Singapore manage large stray populations through designated feeding points, sheltering, and adoption while penalising abandonment and restricting uncontrolled feeding. India can adapt these models, but only if we first accept that unregulated street-dwelling packs in dense urban areas are unsafe.

The reason we do not see stray dogs roaming freely in most foreign cities is because municipalities there have long implemented strict animal control laws combining licensing, mandatory sterilisation, public sheltering, and penalties for abandonment, ensuring dogs are either adopted, sheltered, or humanely cared for in designated spaces, not left to roam in densely populated areas.

This controversy can end constructively if three things happen. First, civic bodies must rapidly expand shelter capacity and ensure humane treatment. Second, dog-loving citizens should channel their energy into adoption drives, shelter volunteering, and early-age training - not confrontation. Third, policymakers must establish clear, enforceable protocols for feeding, sheltering, and handling strays, so no one, human or animal, is left unprotected.

The Supreme Court has given a wake-up call, not a warrant for cruelty. Human life and safety under Article 21 took precedence here, as they must. With cooperation rather than hostility, Delhi–NCR and its environs can become a place where children play without fear, seniors walk without anxiety, and dogs live with dignity in safe, well-run shelters. That is a future worth working for.

This judgment, delivered by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, marked a long-awaited and courageous step forward.

About the authors: Sudhir Mishra is the Founder and Managing Partner of Trust Legal. Petal Chandhok is a Partner and Veer Vikram Singh is an Associate at the firm.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.