The Supreme Court of India has ordered all states and union territories to remove stray dogs from public areas, including schools, hospitals, and transport hubs. This decision has ignited a debate over animal welfare and public safety. The court's directive was issued through a suo motu petition, which allows the court to address issues of public interest without a formal request. The ruling was prompted by a rise in dog-bite incidents, particularly affecting children.

Under the new order, stray dogs that are captured for medical treatment, including rabies vaccinations, will not be returned to the streets. Instead, they are to be relocated to designated shelters. This approach aligns with India's 2023 law, which prohibits the culling of stray dogs. However, animal rights activists have raised concerns about the capacity and conditions of these shelters, which would need to accommodate millions of stray dogs.

The judgment, announced on November 7, referenced various media reports, including an incident involving a Welsh entrepreneur who was bitten by a stray dog while jogging in Bengaluru. According to a 2019 livestock census, India had approximately 9 million stray dogs, but other estimates from 2021 suggest the number could be as high as 52 million. In 2024, the country reported 3.7 million dog-bite incidents and 54 deaths from rabies. Despite these figures, rabies cases have decreased by 75% from 2003 to 2023.

Dr. Krithika Srinivasan, a political ecology professor at the University of Edinburgh, criticized the court's decision, stating, "These numbers have been falling steadily for two decades -- the court orders do not seem to have taken this official and research data into consideration." Previously, India's stray dog management was guided by the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, which mandated sterilization, vaccination, and deworming before returning dogs to their original locations. The recent ruling, however, prohibits this practice.

Srinivasan noted that stable dog populations are less likely to bite and spread rabies. "When you start removing them, you create what ecologists call a perturbation effect," she explained. Ayesha Christina Benn, founder of Neighbourhood Woof, expressed concerns about the practicality of the court's order, highlighting that Delhi alone has about a million stray dogs and only 20 centers to house them. "These centers themselves lack compliance," Benn said, adding that her organization had to rebuild its facility to meet standards.

Benn's NGO currently receives approximately $11 per dog for sterilization and vaccination, which covers only two-thirds of the actual costs. She emphasized that the government lacks the necessary funding to support the court's directive. A similar order was issued by the court in August for the Delhi National Capital Region but was rescinded after protests from animal rights groups.

The current ruling requires that educational institutions and hospitals have adequate fencing and boundary walls within eight weeks. Akanksha Majumdar, a lawyer and founder of The Philanthropist and the Happy Dog, described the judgment as a positive step but disconnected from reality. Her organization is planning to file a review petition against the order.

Srinivasan acknowledged that while the implementation of the ABC policy needs improvement, it has been effective in reducing rabies and stray dog populations in some areas. She attributed this progress to the availability of post-exposure prophylaxis for rabies and other factors.